Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair)

MESSAGE FROM THE KING

INDIA AND BURMA (BURMA MONETARY ARRANGEMENTS) (ANSWER TO ADDRESS)

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Captain SNOW) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address, as followeth:

I have received your Address praying that the India and Burma (Burma Monetary Arrangements) (Amendment) Order, 1946, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.

I will comply with your request.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ASTLEY AINSLIE HOSPITAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — YUGOSLAVIA (MIHAILOVICH)

Mr. Pickthorn: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he asked the Yugoslav Government for information about the charges to be brought against General Mihailovich; what reply he has received; and whether he can now be sure that the charges do arise on something

with which His Majesty's Government have no connection.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Bevin): His Majesty's Representative at Belgrade asked the Yugoslav Government for this information on 8th April. On 27th April he received a reply to the effect that it was not yet possible to say specifically what the charges would be but that they would no doubt be generally on the lines of a statement made by the Yugoslav Minister of the Interior to a Press correspondent and published in the Press on 22nd April. In this interview the Minister of the Interior said that it could be assumed that Mihailovich would be charged with collaboration and for individual criminal acts such as murder, arson, looting and the handing over of partisans and Allied airmen to the Germans.
In view of the statement that collaboration would be among the charges, His Majesty's Government agreed to transmit to the Yugoslav Government a written testimony on behalf of Mihailovich signed by five officers who served as liaison officers with his forces during the war.

Mr. Pickthorn: Did His Majesty's Government also request that any other British subjects who might wish to give evidence, either oral or written, should have their desires met?

Mr. Bevin: I should like notice of that question. I am not quite certain whether we have done so or not.

Mr. Pickthorn: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's representative has made any request for permission to visit or communicate with General Mihailovich during his captivity.

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLAND

Provisional Government

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has now considered the effect of the failure of the Polish Provisional Government of National Unity to maintain the balance of parties agreed in Moscow as one of the conditions of their recognition; and if he will make a full statement.

Mr. Bevin: I am watching this situation closely, but for the present I cannot add to the answer which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member on 17th April.

Elections

Professor Savory: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in view of the promise given by the Polish Provisional Government to His Majesty's Government that the forthcoming elections would be free and unfettered as laid down at Yalta and at Potsdam, he will point out to the Polish Provisional Government that the closing down of the offices of the Polish Peasant Party, P.S.L., on 12th May at Kielce and other places and the arrest of leading members of the party is inconsistent with the conditions on which the Polish Government was provisionally recognised.

Mr. Bevin: I am concerned about reports of these and other recent developments in Poland which indicate an increasing tendency on the part of the present Provisional Government to proceed to extreme measures likely to prejudice in advance the conditions in which elections will be held. I have the situation under constant review.

Professor Savory: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is part of an attempt to force all parties to accept one single Communist Soviet bloc thus frustrating any real election?

Mr. Kirkwood: Cannot the hon. Gentleman say it with more venom?

POLISH ARMED FORCES (REPATRIATION AND RESETTLEMENT SCHEME)

Major Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now make a full statement concerning the repatriation of men and women in the Polish Armed Forces outside Poland, and the future of those who do not wish to return to their own country; and, in particular, how many men and women have volunteered to return to Poland since his appeal to them to take this course; and what is the latest date after which no further applications can be considered.

Mr. Bevin: As regards the first part of the Question, I would ask the hon. and

gallant Member to await the statement which I am making to the House after Question time today. As regards the second part of the Question, the latest information available indicates that, since the statement which I made in this House on 20th March, about 6,800 of these men and women have so far volunteered to go home. No time limit for further applications has been fixed.

Later—

Mr. Bevin: In this House on 20th March, I expressed the hope of His Majesty's Government that as many members of the Polish Armed Forces under British Command as felt able to do so, would recognise it as their duty to return to Poland in order to take part in the reconstruction of their country. As for those who decided that they could not return, I made it clear that His Majesty's Government could not preserve them as an armed force under British Command. I said that the problem of their settlement would be studied with sympathy. What plans could be made would depend very largely on the numbers of those still remaining but, in any case, a demobilisation plan would be worked out. If these men had been British soldiers, most of them would have been demobilised already under the age and service scheme. The particular circumstances of their case meant that orderly demobilisation would take some time. There was no question of discharging them overnight.
I am now able to give some further details of His Majesty's Government's plan. Those of the Polish troops who have volunteered to return to Poland are being repatriated under arrangements which we have made. They return to Poland as soldiers, sailors and airmen. Since it is for the Polish Provisional Government to decide whether to retain them as members of the Armed Forces or whether to demobilise them, and since in the latter case the Polish Provisional Government has promised them the same rights to grants of land as the demobilised soldiers of the Polish Forces in Poland, men returning to Poland have not hitherto been paid gratuities from British funds. We have, however, recently re-considered this matter and have decided that those men who return to Poland from this time on shall be eligible, subject to their having the necessary periods of qualifying service, for war gratuity, a money grant equivalent to not more than eight weeks' pay in lieu of


release leave, and an issue of civilian clothing.
As for those Poles who do not wish to return to Poland, it is our aim to demobilise them as quickly as possible and to arrange for their settlement in civilian life, either in Great Britain or overseas. Those serving abroad will be brought back to this, country, starting with those in Italy. Since it would be both impracticable and unfair to these gallant men, many of whom do not know our language, to launch them wholesale upon the labour market here and leave them to their own resources, His Majesty's Government are going to enrol them into a specially created Resettlement Corps, which will be a British organisation and will for convenience be administered by Service Ministers. Enrolment in this Corps will give an assured status to its members. Conditions of service and rates of pay will be the subject of a detailed announcement later.
The Resettlement Corps will be essentially a transitional arrangement, designed to facilitate the transition from military to civil life. They will therefore be discharged from the Polish Armed Forces and enrolled in the Resettlement Corps with a view to their transfer to civilian life as soon as this becomes possible. Those for whom approved jobs can be found will go to them immediately. The others will be employed by His Majesty's Government to the fullest possible extent in useful productive work such as reconstruction, and in appropriate cases will be given training for-civilian employment pending their eventual return to civil life, whether in British territory or in foreign countries As soon as settlement is complete the Corps will cease to exist.
As a first step to demobilisation and the formation of the Resettlement Corps, His Majesty's Government have decided to bring the Polish 2nd Corps from Italy to the United Kingdom. It is our intention to move their families from Italy to the United Kingdom as soon as administrative arrangements can be made. The ultimate reunion between the men of the Polish Armed Forces and their Polish dependants now in America, Africa, India, Germany, the Middle East and elsewhere overseas is receiving the attention of His Majesty's Government, and the steps which will be necessary to bring it about are now being studied.
His Majesty's Government will continue to give every facility to any Poles who wish, and are able, to return to Poland, and indeed will continue to use their influence with them to go back to their own country. I am happy to state that the Joint Consultative Committee, consisting of the Trades Union Congress and the British Employers Federation, has agreed to cooperate with the Government in carrying out these plans.

Mr. Churchill: I should like to acknowledge the care and attention which His Majesty's Government have given to this very difficult question. I should like to ask in what part of the United Kingdom the second Polish Corps will be quartered immediately on its return. Where will it be placed? Is it to be placed in Scotland, because some parts of Scotland have been for a long time rather overstocked with Polish troops? That is the first question I should like to ask.

Mr. Bevin: That is being worked out by the Chiefs of Staff. They will be distributed all over the country in different units; they will not be kept all together, so as to facilitate absorbing them quickly into private life.

Mr. Churchill: Has the right hon. Gentleman entirely closed his mind to the idea of using these extremely fine, well-disciplined troops as part of the garrison for holding Germany, in portions of Germany far removed from the Russian frontier line? Would not this be a means by which further relief could be given to our own men and a reduction made in the weight of the garrisons abroad which we have to maintain?

Mr. Bevin: I think it would be a very bad thing for British policy if we were to go in for a system of a foreign legion to undertake our responsibilities.

Mr. Julius Silverman: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any up-to-date information as to how many of these Polish soldiers and officers have elected to return home? Can he also give us any information as to the structure of this Resettlement Corps? Is there any question of the retention of a military structure, or will men and officers be civilians and equal?

Mr. Bevin: While they ate in the Resettlement Corps they will be under mili-


tary control, but the Resettlement Corps must come under British law, and the only device I have been able to think of without introducing foreign law—again for the administration of foreign troops in this country—is to transfer them to a corps under British military law, so that they would be responsible to the laws of our country while they are in the resettlement state. Following the resettlement state, they will pass out as quickly as they can—and I hope very quickly, in view of the shortage of labour in so many fields —into civilian life. It was, I thought, the desire of the House that I should do that, and treat them, having played their part, almost pari passu with our own people with whom they have fought.

Mr. Churchill: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer the question, which was asked just now below the Gangway, about the number and proportion who have opted to go back to Poland up to now?

Mr. Bevin: I have given the figures earlier today, but the right hon. Gentleman was not here. Since 20th March, 6,800, and before 20th March, 23,000.

Mr. Churchill: How many are left?

Mr. Bevin: I think, roughly, 100,000 overseas and about 60,000 here, so far as I remember.

Mr. Bootbby: May I ask whether, amongst the training facilities to be provided, training for the industries of coal mining and agriculture will be included?

Mr. Bevin: Certainly. I have been engaged elsewhere whilst studying this thing, but I am in touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour in order that I can get every facility, training centres and the other facilities, for men to go back quickly into private life.

Major Beamish: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind two particular points? First, that the only reason why these men and women will not return to their own country is because Poland is governed by a small Communist clique—

Mr. Speaker: This hardly seems relevant to the statement that has been made.

Mr. Maclay: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to draw the special attention of those responsible for the quartering of these troops to the fact that there are certain areas in Scotland where Polish troops have been stationed for a long time? They were glad to welcome them, but it is important that they should not go back there now. There are many reasons for that.

Mr. Bevin: I quite understand, in spite of my age. We will distribute them so that the blessings may be spread equally.

Mr. H. Hynd: As the right hon. Gentleman said that this Resettlement Corps is going to be under British discipline, can he give an assurance that it will not be an armed force?

Mr. Bevin: It will not be an armed force. But one cannot take men out of an armed force in a unique situation—or, may I put it this way? All the British troops who came out of the Army had certain laws passed by this House to protect them, and to enable them to return to their jobs and to arrange for their resettlement, and all the rest of it. We cannot do that in the case of these men. We have to devise an intermediate stage. This intermediate stage has been a great worry. We cannot launch all these people, not even knowing our language, on to the labour market, and leave the whole thing in chaos. That is why we have arranged this intermediate device.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: There is much other Business before us today, and if everybody rises to ask supplementary questions on this matter we shall not accomplish it.

Mr. Churchill: Is that not part of the difficulty that arises from these very important and deeply interesting announcements being made at the end of Questions, and not on any subject which enables them to be commented upon?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot help that.

Professor Savory: There is one question I want to ask. In the case of those who desire to become British subjects, will the hope held out to them by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) be realised?

Mr. Bevin: The whole question of naturalisation is a very difficult problem,


and I ought not to have to deal with it in answer to a supplementary question. I hope I shall not be pressed upon this. There are other countries which have fought alongside these gallant men, that happily are also willing to play their part in absorbing them. I do not want to name the Governments here. But they have indicated to me elsewhere. They have all been in the same team together in that fight, and the generals have been together, and there is great sympathy in this business. Therefore, I do not want to have to deal with this technical question of naturalisation until I know with what we have to cope.

Captain Francis Noel-Baker: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether facilities for resettlement, at least as good as those given to these Polish troops, will be afforded to aliens being demobilised from the British Forces?

Mr. Bevin: Well, I think they are.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman said earlier in his statement that steps would be taken to assist men to find employment if they came to live here. Is it intended that these men will he given the chance to find employment for themselves?

Mr. Bevin: It is very difficult to answer that.

Mr. Gallocher: I want to ask whether, when these men are being placed in any area, there will be consultation with the local authority in order to ensure that the best possible conditions are provided for them?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, I am working with the local authorities. This is not only a question of demobilising the men but we have to provide for their training and the education of their children. The tackling of this job is one of the most difficult things, and cannot be described adequately in answer to supplementary questions

Mr. Churchill: Would not very many of these difficulties be solved if the right hon. Gentleman were to use this force to take some of the weight off us in the duties we have to discharge on the Continent? Will he not consider that? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Members say "No," but I should like the right hon.

Gentleman to consider it, because it seems to me that nothing but advantage and simplicity would come from it—much stricter control; there need be no contact with other countries beyond the German border; and there would be relief to the British burden, and also a relief to the British labour market. Surely some consideration might be given to these points?

Mr. Bevin: We have given the utmost and long consideration to this problem, and I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that, in my view, as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, nothing could do more to prevent the establishment of confidence and to accentuate the suspicion that exists already than our taking that course.

Sir W. Wakefield: Have any arrangements been made for this rehabilitation to be done in the United States or in any of the Dominions for any of the Polish troops who desire to be rehabilitated in the United States or in the Dominions?

Mr. Bevin: I would ask not to be pressed about other Governments at the moment. I have had only private conversations. Sometimes, if I answer questions, I kill my own goose.

Mr. Edelman: In view of the French Government's expressed willingness in the past to receive immigrants on a large scale, will the right hon. Gentleman consult with that Government, in order to see whether any of these Polish troops in the Resettlement Corps may go to France if they wish to do so?

Mr. Bevin: Again, I ask not to be pressed about other Governments Let me get on with this job.

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now able to make a further statement on the future position of those members of the Polish armed forces who do not opt to return to Poland.

Mr. Bevin: I would refer my hon. Friend to my statement on this subject in reply to Question 4

EGYPT (BRITISH SOLDIERS' DEATH)

Mr. Molson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps His Majesty's Government have taken to


bring home to the Egyptian Government their responsibility for the murder by an Egyptian crowd in Alexandria on 4th March of two British soldiers; whether the Egyptian Government is endeavouring to bring the murderers to justice; what steps have been taken against the Governor of Alexandria; and whether the Egyptian Government will make a public apology.

Mr. Bevin: His Majesty's Government have left the Egyptian Government in no doubt of the serious view which they take of this event, and have made it clear that they hold the Egyptian Government responsible for the deaths of the two British soldiers concerned. All the evidence in the possession of the British military authorities has been communicated to the Egyptian authorities, who have been pressed to continue their efforts to bring those responsible to justice. The question of action against the Governor of Alexandria is one for the Egyptian Government. The question of a public apology has not been discussed.

Mr. Molson: In view of the statement made by the War Office on 15th May that the Governor of Alexandria incorrectly informed the British military commander that these British soldiers had been rescued, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to press the Egyptian Government to bring home to the Governor of Alexandria his personal responsibility in this matter?

Mr. Bevin: I will go into that.

Earl Winterton: Is it not in accord with usual diplomatic practice that when a national of a country has been murdered the Government of the country where the murder took place tenders a full apology and informs the Government of the country of the murdered person what steps it is taking to bring home the crime to those who have committed it?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, but in this case I have been pressing the Egyptian Government for the apprehension of those responsible, which I regard as the most important thing to do.

Mr. Piekthorn: Would there be any impropriety in laying in the Library the evidence from the British military authorities of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke and, if not, may that be done?

Mr. Bevin: I would like notice of that.

Mr. Lipson: Is it true to say that the Egyptian Government have not yet expressed any apology or regret?

Mr. Bevin: No, I have not raised the question of apology. I have taken up very strongly these incidents in Egypt as a whole, and this case in particular.

Mr. Lipson: My question has not been answered. Have they voluntarily expressed regret?

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir.

AUSTRIA (SOUTH TYROL)

Professor Savory: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the refusal of the Council of Foreign Ministers to restore to Austria the South Tyrol, of which she was deprived in 1919.

Mr. Bevin: At their meeting last September the Foreign Secretaries decided that
The frontier with Austria will not be changed, subject to the decisions to be reached by the Council on any case which Austria may present for minor rectifications in her favors.
This decision was confirmed at our last meeting in Paris, and our Deputies have now been instructed to give further examination to the question of possible "minor frontier rectifications" and to hear evidence from both Austrian and Italian representatives on this subject.

Professor Savory: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that every historian, from that great Ulsterman Lord Bryce down to the present day, has denounced the injustice in that Clause of the Treaty of St. Germain by which a quarter of a million Tyrolese were handed over to Italy?

Mr. Bevin: I appreciate the enthusiasm of the hon. Member but it is not purely a political question. In all these considerations if there is to be peace in Europe economics have to be taken into account as well.

Sir Ronald Ross: In considering the fate of this community, did those concerned apply the principles of self-determination?

Mr. Bevin: Not strictly. As a matter of fact, the peoples of Europe are so intermixed that this principle of self-determination on strict frontiers is a very difficult thing to apply.

Earl Winterton: Surely the right hon. Gentleman can say whether or not the people of South Tyrol have been consulted on this matter. Is it not the policy of His Majesty's Government to find out what are the wishes of the inhabitants?

Mr. Bevin: We promised Italy under the Coalition Government that if she worked her passage we would take that into account. Italy has worked her passage and I have to take that into account.

Mr. Gallacher: Might I ask the Foreign Secretary if the Foreign Ministers considered the restoration of Northern Ireland to Eire?

Professor Savory: I give notice that I. shall bring up this question on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREECE

British Forces.

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state the conditions which still remain to be fulfilled before British troops are withdrawn from Greece.

Mr. Bevin: I have nothing to add to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) on 3rd April.

Mr. Warbey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he informed the Security Council that British troops would be withdrawn from Greece very shortly after the holding of elections and the establishment of a stable Government? As over six weeks have passed, can he say what are the compelling reasons for not contemplating the carrying out of that promise?

Mr. Bevin: I am very glad to have my hon. Friend's assurance that a stable Government has now been fixed in Greece.

Electoral Register

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Greek Government have agreed to accept

the recommendation of the Allied Mission to Observe the Greek Elections that a new census shall be taken as a basis for the proposed revision of the electoral registers.

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir. In the summary of its report, which was released to the Press on 10th April, the Allied Mission for the observation of the Greek elections recommended that all registration lists in Greece should be completely recompiled before the opinion of the Greek people was again sought on a matter of national import. This recommendation was immediately accepted in principle by the Greek Government, who on the 14th April issued to the British, United States and French Governments through their Ambassadors in Athens invitations to appoint observers to supervise the steps taken by the Greek Government to comply with it. This invitation has been accepted by the Governments of the United States and Great Britain. In the circumstances, therefore, the question of taking a new census, which is obviounsly impracticable before 1st September, is not one on which the Greek Government have been called on to decide in this connection.

Mr. Warbey: Would my right hon. Friend look at the full report which has been published now as a White Paper, in which he will see that the election observers point out that the census on which the registers are based was compiled in 1928 and they definitely recommend that the new registers should be based on the new census?

Mr. Sevin: Did the hon. Gentleman say 1938?

Mr. Warbey: Nineteen twenty-eight.

Mr. Bevin: I cannot remember when our last census was taken, but I think it was about the same time.

Mr. Walkden: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman to observe on this point that, whatever may happen in regard to the compilation of a register, it appears to be generally held by his observers that no normal register can be compiled in Greece unless a new census is adopted or brought into being right away?

Mr. Bevin: I cannot accept that for any of these Balkan countries. In my view, when they are emerging from occu-


pation in the way they are, a good deal of improvisation has to, take place. I accept the very difficult circumstances of the country and I believe it is possible to get a very fair register without imposing the necessity of the long drawn out difficulty of a census.

Mr. Warbey: I give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE (PROPOSED ALLIANCE)

Mr. Cocks: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has considered the declaration of the Foreign Minister of France that there is a mutual desire for an alliance between France and Britain; and what steps are being taken to conclude such an alliance.

Mr. Bevin: As I informed the hon. and gallant Member for Waterloo (Captain Bullock) on 3rd April, His Majesty's Government have always desired to make an alliance with the French Government, of the same kind as our Treaty of Mutual Assistance with the Soviet Union. I further said that the, Government have recently given renewed consideration to the matter. I have at present nothing to add to that statement.

Mr. Cocks: Do I gather that the Foreign Secretary agrees that a further agreement between Britain and France, complementary to the agreement which both countries have with Russia, is an essential basis for the peace of Europe, and will he do everything to further that?

Mr. Bevin: I have always been in favour of that agreement, but it must be an alliance based on friendship between the two countries and not made conditional on anything else.

Mr. Edelman: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that whatever the other differences, all French political parties enthusiastically want an Anglo-French alliance?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, but they also want conditions with regard to other things before it can be discussed, to which I cannot agree.

SPAIN (BRITISH' BROADCAST)

Mr. Cocks: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that an article by Sir William Beveridge on the Franco régime has recently been broadcast to Spain by the B.B.C.; and whether his Department was consulted before this action was taken.

Mr. Bevin: I understand that an article by Sir William Beveridge entitled "How to be rid of Franco was broadcast by the B.B.C. in their Spanish Service on 16th April. The Foreign Office were not consulted in advance, but this is perfectly normal, since, though the B.B.C. keep in touch with the Foreign Office on matters of general policy, the Department are not concerned with the details of the B.B.C.'s programmes.

Mr. Cocks: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that this article favoured the return of the monarchy and slandered Señor Giral, and is there any way of controlling the European service of the B.B.C. which is staffed by anti-republican Roman Catholics?

Mr. Bevin: Really, the Foreign Office is not going to establish a censorship of the B.B.C. neither will I ever indulge in it. I do expect the B.B.C. on matters of general policy, for which His Majesty's Government are responsible and which we have issued, to have regard to that policy; but I am not going to interfere with anybody expressing his views one way or the other.

Mr. Warbey: Is it not the case that the Foreign Office give advice to the European service of the B.B.C. and that they have advised them not to say anything offensive to the monarchy?

Mr. Bevin: That is not true. It just comes from a warped mind.

Mr. Logan: Without being in any way offensive to the monarchy, is it right for any Member of this House to insult Roman Catholic opinion?

Mr. Cocks: Do we understand from the answer of the Foreign Secretary that the policy of the British Government is to restore the monarchy, because this article was in favour of that?

Mr. Speaker: We are discussing the B.B.C. and not the policy of Hi Majesty's Government.

THE SUDAN

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what commitments regarding the Sudan have been made by His Majesty's Government; and what claims have been advanced by the Egyptian Government in this respect.

Mr. Bevin: I take it that the hon. Member is referring to political commitments. So far as these are concerned, His Majesty's Government are bound by the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1936 and by the Anglo-Egyptian Agreements regarding the Sudan of 10th January and 10th July, 1899, in which connection I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald) on 10th February. I would also refer to the statement regarding the future of the Sudan made to the House in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid) on 26th March. No official claims have been formulated to His Majesty's Government by the Egyptian Government as regards the Sudan, but the question of the Sudan will be discussed in the course of the present negotiations for the revision of the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1936.

Mr. Stewart: What I had intended to ask the Minister was whether, in the course of the preliminaries to the present negotiations with Egypt, any special commitments were made to the Sudan.

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir.

DISPLACED PERSONS (REPATRIATION)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state the full terms of all the arrangements made by the allied Chiefs of Staff op behalf of His Majesty's Government at Teheran or Yalta, under which displaced persons are liable to forcible repatriation to their countries of origin.

Mr. Bevin: No arrangements were made at Teheran for the repatriation of displaced persons. The arrangements for

repatriation made at the Crimean Conference were limited to Soviet citizens liberated by forces operating under British command and British subjects liberated by the Soviet armed forces. The agreement covering these arrangements was signed not by the Chiefs of Staff, but by my predecessor, acting on behalf of His Majesty's Government in this country and in the Dominions. The terms of this agreement were published in this country at the time, but I shall be glad to furnish my hon. Friend with a copy if he so wishes.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask the Foreign Secretary whether he is aware that we have been told in this House, that his predecessor did not sign this Agreement, but that the Chiefs of Staff did, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in consequence, both those who administer the findings of Yalta, and those who have them unfortunately administered on them, are in a state of some bewilderment?

Mr. Bevin: I do not know what has been said, but those are the facts I got from the Office as I have read them out.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. William Teeling: Before you call the next Question, Mr. Speaker, may I ask your guidance upon a point of Order? On Friday, I put down a Question, which was accepted by the Chair, on the subject of the Polish Army and soldiers serving in it taking part in the Victory celebrations. I put the Question down to the Prime Minister. On Monday, I received a letter from the right hon. Gentleman stating that the Question was being transferred to the Foreign Secretary. Today, there is no reference by the' Foreign Secretary to this matter in the 17 Questions which have been put to him, but it appeared yesterday as Question 132, which was not reached, thus giving me no opportunity of asking any supplementaries. Would it not be right that this Question should be taken today?

Mr. Speaker: It would have been possible to arrange that. It seems to me that the hon. Member should consult the Table. Not having had notice that this question was to be put, I cannot answer offhand.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Surplus Stores

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many naval holding stores have been closed down in Belgium, France, Holland and other countries; how many blankets were disposed of from these stores; and how the disposal of all these stores was carried out.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): Four naval store or victualling store depots formerly established at bases in Europe have been closed, and eight elsewhere. Other depots have been reduced in size, or are preparing for closing. In addition, numerous temporary base organisations have been established and closed according to immediate requirements, but precise particulars of these are not available.
Surplus stores are disposed of by transfer elsewhere to meet naval needs or, if surplus to overall naval requirements, by allocation to other Government services or relief or rehabilitation services, or by local sale effected by the naval authorities, or by transfer to other disposal departments. No information is available as to the number of surplus naval blankets which may have been disposed of by these methods, but the numbers are not thought to have been large. All surplus blankets abroad are now, however, being brought to the United Kingdom for disposal.

Colonel Ropner: May I ask if instructions could not be issued that all Service stores which become surplus on the Continent, and are of a type required by the inhabitants of this country, should be brought back for sale here?

Mr. Dugdale: Every effort is made to dispose of all surplus products which can be used by civilians, and I will look into the point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

H.M.S. "Imperieuse" (Inquiries)

Mr. Champion: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will cause an inquiry to be made into the conditions existing on the training ship H.M.S. "Imperieuse,"In respect of the insanitary condition of the lavatories; the serving, condition and amount of food supplied; the dirty conditions in which the food

has to be cooked; the inadequacy of the sleeping accommodation; and give an assurance that he will remedy all grievances found proved.

Mr. Dugdale: Yes, Sir. Immediate inquiries are proceeding into the points raised by my hon. Friend.

Demobilisation

Mr. Driberg: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the main reasons for the delay in the release of stokers, what steps are being taken to minimise it; and what is the average period required to train a stoker.

Mr. Dugdale: The reasons for the slower rate of release of stokers is, firstly, that while ships can, if necessary, run in peacetime with relatively few deck hands, there must always be a full complement in the engine room, and secondly, that engine room ratings are required for the care and maintenance of machinery in ships reduced to reserve. An additional call on the branch has been the need to keep a number of His Majesty's ships with full engine room complements in commission for trooping duties. About 100 junior stoker ratings have been entered for training each week since June, 1945, a total of 3,000, but the training of these men to the required degree of efficiency takes 20 weeks. As the trained men become available, the gap between stokers and seamen will diminish and releases should be nearly level by the end of this year.

Fleet Reservists

Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how long the Royal Proclamation calling out reserves will remain in force, since this precludes payment of the peace retainer to Royal Fleet reservists.

Mr. Dugdale: It is not yet possible to say how long it will be necessary to keep in force the Royal Proclamation calling out the Reserves. The question of resuming payment of retainers to Royal Fleet Reservists who are not called out under the Proclamation is being examined as a separate issue.

Sir J. Lucas: Will the hon. Gentleman consider making these payments retrospective when the decision is made, in order that the detrimental effect will be minimised?

Mr. Dugdale: I should require notice of that; I am not quite certain that I could agree to it offhand.

Flour

Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty to what extent it is intended that the R.N. should adopt the new type of high-extraction flour for making bread.

Mr. Dugdale: The new type of high extraction flour will be used in future for making bread in Naval shore establishments and in non-sea-going ships in the United Kingdom, instead of the national wheatmeal flour hitherto supplied. The use of specially dried high extraction flour for bread making in seagoing ships is being investigated.

Sir G. Fox: Are we to understand that sea-going ships are at present being supplied with white flour?

Mr. Dugdale: Yes, Sir, because it is quite impossible adequately to dry the new kind of flour; otherwise, sea-going ships would have exactly the same flour as the people on shore.

Rosyth Dockyard

Mr. Gallacher: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he has considered the resolution, forwarded by the hon. Member for West Fife, from the Dunfermline branch of the National Federation of Retail Newsagents, Booksellers and Stationers, deploring the lack of a definite pronouncement on the future of Rosyth Dockyard, and the fact that this is leading to a steady decrease in the number of employees in the dockyard; and whether he has any statement to make.

Mr. Dugdale: I have considered the resolution, but I regret that I am not yet in a position to add anything to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on 20th March last.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not possible to get an approximate date when we might get something definite on this question, as we have had deputations down at the Admiralty for going on for two years trying to get a decision in regard to Rosyth? Will not the hon. Gentleman try to give us an approximate date when we may have the decision?

Mr. Dugdale: I fully realise the difficulties of the situation and the position in which the people of Rosyth are placed, but I must ask for some time in which not only this question, but also allied questions, can be considered, because this cannot be considered purely in vacuo.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the hon. Gentleman give us a guarantee that Rosyth will be kept going, and then we would not care how long he takes?

Major Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether or not similar conditions apply to all the Royal Dockyards, and whether they are awaiting a statement in regard to the policy to be pursued concerning them?

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in this matter, if not in others, the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) represents the unanimous view of the East of Scotland?

Eastern Mediterranean

Squadron-Leader Donner: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty to which new centre the Fleet, normally based upon Alexandria, is ultimately to be transferred; and what is the estimated cost of the new naval establishment, or establishments, at Cyprus or elsewhere, including harbour works and all necessary installations.

Mr. Dugdale: No Fleet is normally based on Alexandria in peacetime. The question of a new centre does not, therefore, arise.

Squadron-Leader Donner: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the cost of all necessary temporary installations to accommodate at Haifa the Fleet until recently based upon Alexandria; and the cost also of the removal from Alexandria of all stores and equipment.

Mr. Dugdale: No additional facilities will be required at Haifa when the Royal Navy leaves Alexandria. As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to him yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Squadron-Leader Donner: With the hon. Gentleman make a statement after the negotiations have been concluded?

Mr. Dugdale: This is a question which relates to all three Services, and I think the Prime Minister and Minister of Defence would be the proper person to make a statement if one is made.

Commander Noble: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what battleship docking facilities are now available in the eastern Mediterranean.

Mr. Dugdale: None, Sir.

Strength

Captain Marsden: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to state the present strength of His Majesty's Navy, giving exact numbers of all classes of ships, specifying in detail those in full commission, with reduced crews, in reserve, and on the sale or disposal lists.

Mr. Dugdale: No, Sir. I regret that it would not be in the public interest to give this very detailed information. Such information as can be made public is contained in the Navy List, of which copies are available in the Library.

Captain Marsden: In view of the fact that the war has been over for a long time and that it has always been the custom for this country to know the strength of the Navy for which we are paying, cannot the hon. Gentleman reconsider this decision?

Mr. Dugdale: This is a decision which is similar, I understand—though, naturally, I am not responsible for it—to that taken in the other Service Departments, and customs do sometimes change.

CROWN PROCEEDINGS BILL

Mr. Emrys Roberts: asked the Attorney-General whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to introduce the Crown Proceedings Bill in order to place action between the subject and the Crown on the same basis as action between subject and subject.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shaweross): It is the intention of His Majesty's Government to introduce legislation dealing with this matter as soon as circumstances permit, but consideration of the actual draft Bill to which the hon. Member refers has shown that various

alterations will be necessary. I can hold out no hope that a Bill will be introduced this Session, but an appropriate Measure will be prepared as soon as pressure of other more urgent matters makes it possible.

PENSIONS APPEALS (HIGH COURT)

Mr. Thomas Macpherson: asked the Attorney-General if he will now agree to abolish the six weeks' time limit for disabled ex-Servicemen for taking their cases before the High Court after rejection by the Appeals Tribunal, since numbers of these men are satisfied that their claims are similar to those recently admitted by Mr. Justice Denning.

The Attorney-General: No, Sir. The course suggested would be quite impracticable having regard to the large number of appeals which have already been determined and finally disposed of within the framework of the Act and the existing Rules. The vast majority of appellants showed no dissatisfaction with the decisions in their cases until the recent judgments to which the hon. Member has referred. Nor does it follow that these cases are necessarily affected by those judgments, the purport of which appears to have been misunderstood both in this House and in the public Press.
I would remind the hon. Member that Parliament has decided that the award of pensions by my right hon. Friend is to be subject to appeal to independent tribunals and thence to the ordinary courts of law. Where issues of this kind are made justiciable by the courts they must be subject to legal principles which have been evolved by the judiciary over a long period of years, and the adoption of the hon. Member's suggestion would be diametrically opposed to these principles.

Mr. MacPherson: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that, because legal principles have been disregarded before the tribunals, many disabled ex-Servicemen would like to take their cases to the High Court because they feel that their cases are on a parity with those which Mr. Justice Denning has recently dealt with?

The Attorney-General: I am quite unable to accept the assumption of the hon. Member, which I believe to be contrary to the facts. It not infrequently


happens that a decision of the higher court reverses a view of the law which has hitherto been acted upon in lower courts, but if that were to enable the litigants, in cases which had previously been decided, to reopen those cases, there would be no kind of finality at all in legal proceedings.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Is the Attorney-General aware that most Courts of Appeal have an inherent power to ignore time limits and to extend, time limits in order to give a right of appeal, and is he further aware that, in regard to there being no protests in this matter, many Members of Parliament are being inundated with letters of complaint on the subject?

Mr. Hopkins Morris: Does the answer of the Attorney-General mean that the Minister of Pensions contemplates appealing against the decisions?

Mr. Sydney Silverman: In view of the tact that the Minister of Pensions opposed the appeal before Mr. Justice Denning and lost, does it not follow that, in previous cases, he has denied to applicants pensions which, on Mr. Justice Denning's ruling, they are entitled to have, and will the hon. and learned Gentleman say on what legal principle the State proposes to continue to ignore this and to deprive those men of pensions to which they are rightly entitled?

The Attorney-General: The assumption made by my hon. Friend does not follow and, therefore, the further part of his question does not arise.

Mr. Macpherson: Will my hon. and learned Friend reconsider his decision, especially in cases where the medical member of a tribunal has given evidence before the tribunal which Mr. Justice Denning has ruled is quite irregular? There are many such cases.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Croydon Airfield

Mr. Erroll: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air when the R.A.F. will leave Croydon aerodrome.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air Mr. Strachey): Croydon is already under civil control. We shall move away the one squadron of Transport Command

which is still there as soon as the civil operators are able to take over the scheduled services which it runs.

Mr. Erroll: In view of the great desire of civil operators to get going as soon as possible, could not my hon. Friend move the squadron away to Bovingdon Northolt immediately?

Mr. Strachey: We cannot move the squadron away until the services it runs can be taken over by the civil operators. We are naturally pressing for that at the earliest possible date because we wish to be relieved of these scheduled services. The delay is on the part of the civil operators.

Mr. Scollan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this airport is under civil control and that the military authorities have kept civil aeroplanes flying about and refused to let them land at Croydon?

Mr. Strachey: It the hon. Member is referring to flying control at Croydon, I would inform him that there, also, we are only too anxious to hand it over to the civil operators. Our trouble is that we cannot get them to take over because they have not yet the trained personnel and we have to fill the gap for them, but we do not like doing so at all.

Air-Commodore Harvey: As the Royal Air Force has some six hundred aerodromes and in view of the speed of modern aircraft, could not the Royal Air Force move from London and give up Croydon and Hendon to civil aviation?

Mr. Strachey: In the case of Croydon, a Transport Command squadron is performing what I might call a civil aviation function—it is running scheduled services. In the case of Northolt, it is already a civil airfield, as the hon. and gallant Member knows.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Could not the Minister remove the squadron to Northolt?

Mr. Speaker: Northolt does not come into this Question.

Personal Cases

Mr. Driberg: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that 1873785 L.A.C. A. R. Fox, who was due for demobilisation in the United Kingdom before 30th April, left 320 M.U., R.A.F., India, on 24th March, went through the demobilisation process at


Worli and attended a boat-list parade on 2nd April, and was then informed that he was to be held in India for questioning: and if, in view of the fact that he took no part in the recent R.A.F. strikes, other than being a member of a delegation formed at the express wish of the officer conducting the investigation into them, and that he had not been questioned by 5th May, he will state whether this man has now left India and the reasons for the delay in his release.

Mr. Strachey: I am still awaiting a full report regarding this airman. I have again asked for an explanation by signal and when it is received I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Captain Francis Noel-Baker: Is my hon. Friend aware that many Members of this House are concerned about reports reaching them regarding the methods of investigation into the R.A.F. strikes, and has he looked at the matter very closely and satisfied himself that these methods are, in fact, in order?

Mr. Strachey: I have looked at the matter with great attention and concern, but I am not in a position to add any- thing to the reply circulated last week in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Beswick: asked the Under- Secretary of State for Air, if 1890708 Sergeant P. R. Woodmore, of whose case he has been informed, can be demobilised in his home country of Uganda.

Mr. Strachey: This airman is eligible for repatriation to his home country when he is demobilized

Mr. C. S. Taylor: asked the Under- Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that a pilot in the R.A.F., who contracted tuberculosis in Bombay in December, 1945, and who was boarded to receive treatment in South Africa, is still in hospital in India awaiting transport; and how much longer he will have to wait before receiving proper treatment.

Mr. Strachey: If the hon. Member will let me have the name of this man I will make immediate inquiries. The responsibility for the transfer of T.B. cases from India rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, who controls hospital ships. I am in touch with him about this problem.

Mr. Taylor: I understand that this man is one of many, and may I be assured that if I do give his name no action will be taken which will be prejudicial to him?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, certainly.

Permanent Commissions

Mr. Hollis: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that, in spite of A.M.O. A.2/46, reapplication for permanent commissions by short-service commission officers, whose applications had been rejected prior to that Air Ministry Order, are being refused by his Department; and whether he will make a statement on the policy in this matter.

Mr. Strachey: I realise that I did not make this position clear in the Air Estimates Debate, because I failed to distinguish between officers who had had their applications for permanent commissions refused and those whose applications had simply been acknowledged without any decision being given. It was this latter category who were asked to reapply. I am afraid there would be no point in asking the much smaller number of officers whose applications had been definitely refused to send them in again. For, in their cases, there is some definite reason why their applications cannot be accepted.

Mr. Hollis: In view of the fact that what the Under-Secretary thought the Government policy to be was so very much more intelligent than what the Government policy is, would it not be a good plan to take advantage of this slip at headquarters in order to inaugurate the better policy?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. I think in those cases where we have definitely had to refuse, there would be no benefit and, in fact, there would be some hardship to the applicant in asking him to apply again. I repeat that the great majority of cases could not be dealt with because we had not at that time the number of permanent commissions to offer, and we have asked all these officers to re-apply.

Middle East

Squadron-Leader Donner: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what alternative aerodromes, and at what cost in equipping them, are being planned outside Egypt to take the place of those to be abandoned there.

Mr. Strachey: No final decision has yet been taken on the deployment of our Air Forces in the Middle East, and I cannot, therefore, give any estimate of expenditure likely to be involved. We shall, of course, make full use of the airfields already available in the Royal Air Force Mediterranean and Middle East Command.

Squadron-Leader Donner: Surely plans could have been made for alternative aerodromes when the decision was taken to evacuate Egypt?

Mr. Strachey: There are a very large number of alternative airfields in many parts of the Middle East.

Airfields (Release)

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether it is now possible to release the aerodromes at Kelmscott and Akeman Street for agricultural purposes.

Mr. Strachey: We shall be able to release Akeman Street for farming within the next two months, but I am afraid we shall need Kelmscott, which is being used for beam approach training, until the end of the year at least.

Central Band (Recruitment)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that the central band of the R.A.F. is not up to establishment; and what steps are being taken to encourage recruitment.

Mr. Strachey: The present recruiting campaign is intended to attract volunteers for the Royal Air Force Central Band as well as for the many other trades in which we are short of men.

Mr. Beswick: Is it not a fact that the band depends for its volunteers upon musicians from other Services, and that the regulation which says that no service in another branch of more than four years shall count towards a pension if they transfer to the Royal Air Force, is having a deterrent effect upon volunteers?

Mr. Strachey: I will consider that.

DISABILITY PENSIONS (BRITISH LEGION RECOMMENDATIONS)

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: asked the Prime Minister if he will now set up a Royal Commission to consider the whole question of disability pensions and allowances in the light of the recommendations submitted to His Majesty's Government by the British Legion, Scotland, in 1943.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): A comprehensive review of the War Pension Code was made at the end of last year and the resulting improvements were announced in Command Paper 6714 issued in December. In making this review His Majesty's Government had regard to representations made by various bodies including the British Legion, Scotland, and in the circumstances my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is not prepared to set up a Royal Commission to consider the recommendations of that body.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is a good deal of dissatisfaction with the existing pensions arrangements?

METROPOLITAN ANASTASY (BRITISH ZONE)

Captain F. Noel-Baker: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster under what conditions the Metropolitan Anastasy, formerly an active Nazi collaborator, was permitted to enter the British zone of occupied Europe.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): So far as I am aware, he has never entered the British zone of Germany or Austria.

Captain Noel-Baker: Is my hon. Friend aware that it has been publicly stated that this person did enjoy the support of the British Government? Can he make it clear that that is not the case?

Mr. Hynd: I have not seen the publication, but I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that he has not had the support of His Majesty's Government.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: Could the hon. Gentleman say what functions his gentleman performs? Who is he?

Mr. Hynd: I presume the hon. and gallant Gentleman is asking for his name?

Wing-Commander Hulbert: No, I am asking what he does.

Mr. Hynd: I am not aware of that.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Hotel Meals

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Minister of Food to what extent meals being served in private rooms in West End hotels exceed the regulations laid down by his Department; and what steps he is taking to deal with this question.

The Minister of Food (Sir Benjamin Smith): I am not aware that meals served in private rooms in West End hotels exceed the provisions of the Meals in Establishments Order. Whether in public or in private rooms only three courses may be served. If the hon. Member is aware of any instance in which he considers the law is not being observed and will let me have details, I will make inquiries.

Mr. Shepherd: I am sure the Minister has a staff which is most actively engaged in this kind of work, and it is not for me to supply the information.

Pilchards Levy

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the Minister of Food (1) the total sum collected by the levy on processed pilchards during 1945;
(2) the total sum expended in transport in the United Kingdom on processed pilchards during 1945.

Sir B. Smith: I regret that separate figures of levy receipts and transport expenditure for pilchards are not available. On pilchards cured for export, which accounted for over 60 per cent. of the catch, a rebate of the levy is given which, for 1945, will amount to £8,520.

Mr. Marshall: Would the Minister consult his Department as to whether it is possible to adjust the levy in order to support the pilchard industry and help the inshore fishing industry generally?

Sir B. Smith: I will have another look at it.

Special Cheese Ration

Mr. Percy Wells: asked the Minister of Food if he will now make the agri-

cultural cheese ration available to smallholders.

Sir B. Smith: I regret that I cannot see my way to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion. The special cheese ration is intended for categories of workers who, by the nature of their work, are unable to make use of canteens or catering establishments or get home for their midday meal and are obliged to take a packed meal with them. Smalholders, generally speaking, live near their homes.

Summer Fruits

Mrs. Jean Mann: asked the Minister of Food if, to secure a more equal distribution of summer fruits, he will take steps to prevent growers selling direct to the public, bulk quantities from the nurseries.

Sir B. Smith: Growers cultivating more than certain specified acreages are already prohibited from selling direct to the public fruits of their own growing which are subject to price control, unless specially licensed to do so under the relative maximum prices order.

Mrs. Mann: Could my right hon. Friend say whether growers in Lanarkshire are licensed to sell 12 lbs. at a time to anyone who arrives at the nurseries during the summer, and is he aware that besides private cars there are large queues of people lining up at these nurseries daily throughout the summer?

Sir B. Smith: I am not aware of that, but in the case of tomatoes, for instance, anybody having less than 400 square yards would have a right to sell to the public. However, if my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind I will be very happy to investigate it.

World Food Situation (White Paper)

Sir Arthur Salter: asked the Minister of Food whether he will arrange for the publication of the first of the promised amending editions of the White Paper on food during the forthcoming meeting of the Food and Agricultural Organisation.

Sir B. Smith: I think it better to await the results of the meeting referred to, one of the main objects of which will be to assess the present and prospective situation of world food supplies.

Sir A. Salter: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that as far back as February, the Foreign Secretary promised that there would be periodical White Papers, and that we have had only a single White Paper? It would be of great value if we could now have an improved White Paper on the food situation, incorporating the information which has been referred to this conference.

Sir B. Smith: I am not aware of the statement made by my right hon. Friend, but we have been thinking of giving a quarterly review. As regards the F.A.O. itself, they are kept fully informed of all the subject matter relating to this question, and I had hoped, therefore, to publish an amended copy in July.

Fat and Sugar (Bakers)

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Food if he has considered the effect on the small trader of the 25 per cent cut in fat and sugar allocation to bakers and confectioners; and if he will consider fixing a minimum allocation, which shall not be subject to a cut, to enable the small trader at least to earn a living.

Sir B. Smith: As I announced on 2nd May, the cuts in fats and sugar to bakers are being made in order to reduce the output of flour confectionery, thereby reducing our consumption of flour. In view of the grave world shortage of wheat, I regret I cannot make any such modifications in the cuts as suggested by the hon. Member.

Mr. Lipson: Would not the right hon. Gentleman make the allocation on a fairer basis and have some regard to what is left to the small trader when a cut takes place? At present many of them are being driven out of business.

Sir B. Smith: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that statement is entirely beside the truth. Neither I nor my Ministry know of any instance where any trader has closed up as a result of what my Ministry has done.

Mr. Erroll: asked the Minister of Food why he has reduced the allocation of fats and sugar to bakers; and whether this was done after prior consultation with them as to the best way of reducing flour consumption.

Sir B. Smith: As I announced on 2nd May, the allocation of fats and sugar to

bakers has been reduced with a view to securing a reduction in the consumption of flour for cakes. Unfortunately the need to save flour became so pressing that on this occasion it was impossible for me to follow my usual custom of prior consultation with the Bakery Trade Associations.

Mr. Erroll: Does the Minister realise that this arbitrary action will in no way secure the object he has in mind, as bakers can alter their mixing to maintain the output of cakes, thus overcoming his attempts to reduce flour consumption?

Sir B. Smith: I am glad to be so advised by the hon. Member. On the other hand, I did write to these people and I am now getting their full cooperation

Italian Cheese

Mr. Marples: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the recent cuts of the cheese ration in this country, he will consider importing more cheese from Italy.

Sir B. Smith: Italy is at present a net importer of milk products, but when cheese of a suitable type is available at reasonable prices I shall endeavour to procure it.

Mr. Marples: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that just before he announced a recent cut in the cheese ration in this country, the Italian Government took cheese entirely off the ration, and will he consult with the appropriate department or with the great all-round Leader of the House and see if he can arrange for some cheese to be imported into this country?

Sir B. Smith: I have already said in reply to the hon. Member that if the cheese is available and at reasonable prices I will be happy to procure it.

Mr. Marples: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the purpose of my supplementary question was to indicate to him that cheese is available?

Mr. Keeling: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any objection to a particular kind of cheese being imported because the quantity of it available is not sufficient for distribution to everybody?

Sir B. Smith: Not at all. As may be known to the House, I have undertaken to import quite small quantities of


Camembert cheese and Danish blue cheese, and I shall do all I can to get every kind imported into this country.

Barley Storage (Eastern Counties)

Mr. Dye: asked the Minister of Food what additional storage space will be available to deal with the greater quantity of barley expected from this year's harvest in Norfolk.

Sir B. Smith: Storage space in the hangars of 12 redundant airfields in the Eastern counties has been arranged for this year's barley harvest. Supplies of temporary steel housing will also be available if required.

Ice Cream Price

Mrs. Jean Mann: asked the Minister of Food if the price of ice cream, in whatever form sold, will be controlled; and what steps are available to the public to prevent overcharging.

Sir B. Smith: The scheme for regulating the price of ice cream announced in August last year is still in operation. Traders should not charge more than 50 per cent. above their prewar price for a similar portion of ice cream, and they have been warned that a trader who persists in doing so, after a warning from the Ministry, may lose his allocation of sugar and fats. The public can greatly assist me in operating this scheme, both by refusing to pay unreasonable prices and by reporting particulars of any case where an unreasonable price is asked to the local food office.

Mrs. Mann: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the increases imposed on the public are not 50 per cent. but 500 per cent. and that the public do not know to whom to report? Will he tell us here specifically to whom the public should report these overcharges?

Sir B. Smith: I thought I had stated that in my answer, when I said the local food office.

Mr. Erroll: Can the Minister say how the Order covers those traders who did not deal in ice cream before the war?

Sir B. Smith: There should be none.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that yesterday I bought a choc-ice and got no change out of a shilling?

Sir B. Smith: I am very sorry that my hon. Friend, being a good Scot, should be thus relieved of a shilling.

Motor Cars (Search for Food)

Mr. Spence: asked the Minister of Food why his Department's officials, accompanied by police, are stopping private vehicles on the public highway in the Aberdeen area.

Sir B. Smith: Officers of my Department have no power to stop private vehicles on the public highway. In various parts of the country, however, they have been accompanying police officers when these officers are engaged in stopping private cars. After the police officers have completed their business, my officers announce their identity and request permission to search the car for foodstuffs. The purpose of this request will, I think, be obvious, and I am sure that I have the support of the House in my efforts to stamp out black market activities.

Mr. Spence: Could the Minister say what the results have been in Aberdeenshire?

Sir B. Smith: I could not say for Aberdeen, but we have taken action in many cases. Further prosecutions are being looked into at the moment.

Sir W. Wakefield: When this personal search of individuals and motor cars takes place, are there search warrants for the special search by the individuals or by police officers?

Sir B. Smith: It is known, I think, as a "search by consent."

Mr. C. S. Taylor: Before one of the Ministry of Food officials searches a motor car surely he must have a search warrant; the police can stop the car, but surely the Ministry's officials should not search the car without a warrant?

Sir B. Smith: In all cases consent is asked for, and I think in only one case has it been refused. Mr. Speaker, what is this anxiety that is being shown by hon. Gentlemen opposite? Are they out to protect black marketeers?

Mr. Nally: Is the Minister aware that in regard to the worst black marketeer we had in the North of England, who was subsequently sentenced to a long term for black market offences, the basis of proof


upon which he was convicted arose because of a search by a particularly vigilant police officer of a private motor car?

Mr. Speaker: We are getting a long way from Aberdeen.

Herring Prices

Mr. Boothby: asked the Minister of Food whether he will make it clear in the forthcoming Order that the maximum prices recently fixed for herring are net prices and, therefore, not subject to a discount.

Sir B. Smith: It would not be appropriate to deal with this matter in the Fish (Control and Maximum Prices) Order, but I am considering an amendment to the Fish (Port Allocation Committees) Order, which will make it clear that buyers are not entitled to receive an allocation except at the maximum price prescribed by the Maximum Prices Order exclusive of any discount.

Mr. Boothby: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the dissatisfaction that has been caused in the past, he will examine the whole question of profit margins with the trade interests concerned before fixing the prices next year?

Sir B. Smith: I will gladly do that.

Potatoes

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that potatoes in the North Riding of Yorkshire are being wasted through the delay in collection on the part of his Department; and if he will take immediate action to prevent this.

Sir B. Smith: I am not aware that any potatoes are being wasted. Stocks offered to my Department for disposal are being cleared at a satisfactory rate. Any grower who considers that his potatoes are showing excessive deterioration should at once advise the area potato supervisor.

Mr. Turton: In view of that reply, will the right hon. Gentleman reorganise the intelligence branch of his Department? Is he aware that widespread dissatisfaction in regard to his administration in this matter has been expressed all over the North of England?

Sir B. Smith: I have not collected those voices.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that, whereas the increase in the price per pound of bread will affect urban and rural consumers alike, the compensatory cut in the price of potatoes will be of benefit mainly to urban consumers, since many people living in the country grow their own potatoes; and if, in order to distribute these compensatory benefits more equitably, he will consider reducing the prices of margarine and cheese instead of the prices of butter and potatoes.

Sir B. Smith: It is, of course, clear that those who grow their own potatoes, whether they live in the country or in towns, will not benefit in the reduction of potato prices, but it would be impossible to find a food for which a price reduction would have equal results for everyone. I am, however, satisfied that to reduce the prices of butter and potatoes is the most equitable way of achieving the object of the reduction, namely, the stabilisation of the cost of living index, with the least possible disturbance to the national economy. In the circumstances I cannot see my way to adopting my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Driberg: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied also that when such matters as this are being considered there is no urban bias in his Ministry?

Sir B. Smith: There is very definitely not.

Food Dump, Devonshire

Mr. Scollan: asked the Minister of Food if he has inquired into, and will make a statement on, the condition of the food dump at Aylesbeare Common, in Devonshire.

Sir B. Smith: I have made inquiry into the dumping of foodstuffs in a disused sandpit on Aylesbeare Common in Devonshire. Instructions were given for foodstuffs condemned as unfit for human consumption and dumped there by the United States naval authorities to be burnt, but inadequate steps were taken to see that their destruction was completed. The condemned foodstuffs have since been buried.

Mr. Scollan: Is the Minister aware that a newspaper sent a special investigator down to that particular dump, and that he reported there were hundreds of tons of perfectly edible food lying there wasting.

Sir B. Smith: I am not aware that a Press reporter has any greater ability to test the value or quality of the food than any other person, particularly the medical officer who dealt with this. The fact is, I believe, there were a few tins of fillets of fish that might have been edible, but the bulk was unfit for human consumption.

Sir W. Wakefield: Could not it have been used for poultry?

Mr. Scollan: Is the Minister aware of the discontent in regard to Government control which is created by reports of this character being circulated without having a definite reply?

Fish Licences, Long Buckby

Mr. Manningham-Buller: asked the Minister of Food why a licence has been granted to the Long Buckby Co-operative Society to open a fish shop in Long Buckby.

Sir B. Smith: The Long Buckby Co-Operative Society has held a licence to sell fish since 1939, but has only recently applied for an allocation which was granted on the recommendation of the Food Control Committee.

Leeks (Price)

Mr. Erroll: asked the Minister of Food when the price of imported leeks will be controlled; and at what price per hundredweight.

Sir B. Smith: The question of controlling the price of imported leeks is under consideration, and I hope to make an announcement soon.

Mr. Erroll: Does the Minister realise that at present imported Dutch leeks are being sold in this country at 74s. 6d. per cwt. whereas home grown leeks are sold at the controlled price of 26s. 3d. per cwt. and is this fair?

Sir B. Smith: My information is that there are no home grown leeks on the market at this moment.

Soft Fruit (Freezing)

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Food why his Department is stopping the use of the process of deep or quick freezing of soft fruits for this season.

Sir B. Smith: I have nothing to add to the replies given to the hon. Member for

Evesham (Mr. De la Bère) on 27th February and 20th March, of which I am sending him copies.

SARAWAK (ACT OF CESSION)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. Skinnard: —To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any further statement to make on Sarawak.

At the end of Questions—

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. George Hall): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and with the permission of the House, I should like to reply to this Question.
Yes, Sir. The Council Negri passed the Cession Bill on 16th and 17th May, and the Supreme Council authorised the Rajah to execute the instrument of Cession on 20th May. The Rajah has accordingly signed this document. The acting British Representative in Sarawak signed it on behalf of His Majesty. The Act of Cession is, therefore, completed, but in view of the legal and administrative arrangements that must be made, the territory will not be taken over by His Majesty's Government for a few weeks.
The voting in the Council Negri on the Cession Bill was 18 for, 16 against on the second reading, and 19 for and 16 against on the third reading. Of the 26 non-European members, 14 voted against and 12 for on the second reading, and 13 voted against and 12 for on the third reading. The non-European member who was absent from the third reading through illness was in favour of cession.
His Majesty's Government reviewed their decision to accept cession in the light of these results but reached the conclusion that the narrow majority among the non-European members of the Council Negri against the Cession Bill of two and one on the second and third readings, respectively, did not afford grounds for rejecting the cession of the territory. In reaching this conclusion, His Majesty's Government had in mind the report by the two Members of this House on their independent inquiry into the question whether the proposal to cede the territory,


was, broadly speaking, acceptable to the inhabitants of Sarawak.
As the House is aware, the Members reported that there was sufficient acquiescence or favourable opinion in the country to justify the matter going before the Council, and they strongly urged that there should be no postponement. They did not suggest that the matter should be determined by the votes of the non-European members of the Council, In these circumstances, and bearing in mind that the non-European members of the Council are all nominated, and that there is disproportionate representation of the various communities—the Dyaks who are 50 per cent. of the population, had only four seats out of a total of 37, the Chinese representing 25 per cent. of the population had three seats, whereas the Malays, representing the remaining 25 per cent. of the population had 17 seats—His Majesty's Government felt that the voting of the non-European members could not be accepted as superseding the report of the Members of this House on the views of the inhabitants, and that in any event, it would be wrong to ignore the voting of the European members, who voted as

individuals with knowledge of Sarawak and not as an official bloc.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, since the vote, I have received a telegram from my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) to the effect that although as the right hon. Gentleman says the vote was not conclusive, my hon. Friend is still of the opinion that on balance cession is to the advantage of the people of Sarawak? For that reason, although we regret some of the steps which have led up to this, we feel that the only thing is to hope that this Act of Cession will prove to be of benefit to the people.

Mr. Hall: I was aware that the right hon. Gentleman had received such a telegram. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work which has been done by the two Members of this House who visited Sarawak. Not only did they attend the Council meeting at the capital, but they visited eight of the principal places in Sarawak and were able to ascertain the views of the peoples in those areas.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Proceedings on Government Business, be exempted, at this day's Sitting,

from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

The House divided: Ayes, 273 Noes, 137.

Division No. 177.]
AYES.
[3.55 p.m.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)


Allighan, Garry
Fairhurst, F.
McKinlay, A. S.


Alpass, J. H.
Farthing, W. J.
Maclean, N. (Govan)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Follick, M.
McLeavy F.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Forman, J. C.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Attawell, H. C.
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Awbery, S. S.
Gallacher, W.
Mann Mrs. J.


Ayles, W. H.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Gibbins, J.
Manning Mrs. L. (Epping))


Bacon, Miss A.
Gibson, C. W.
Marquand, H. A,


Balfour, A.
Gilzean, A.
Medland, H. M.


Barstow, P. G.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Messer, F.


Bartlett, V.
Gooch, E. G.
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Barton, C.
Goodrich, H. E.
Mikardo, Ian


Battley, J. R.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Mitchison. Mai. G. R


Bechervaise, A. E.
Granville, E. (Eye)
Monslow, W.


Benson, G.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Hey wood)
Montague, F.


Beswick, F.
Grenfell, D. R.
Morley, R.


Bing, Capt. G. H. C
Grey, C. F.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)


Binns, J.
Grierson, E.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewitsham, E.)


Blyton, W. R.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Mort, D. L.


Broadman, H.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Moyle, A.


Bottomley, A. G.
Guy, W. H.
Nally, W.


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Hale, Leslie
Naylor, T. E.


Bowen, R.
Hall, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Aberdare)
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Braddock, T. (Mitcnam)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hardy, E. A.
Oldfield, W. H.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Harris, H. Wilson
Palmer, A. M. F.


Brown, George (Belper)
Harrison, O
Parker, J.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Harrison, Miss M
Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Holman, P.
Pearson, A.


Burden, T. W.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Peart, Capt. T. F.


Butler, H. W. (Hacknay, S)
Horabin, T. L.
Perrins, W.


Byers, Lt. Col. F.
House, G-
Popplewall, E.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hubbard, T.
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Chamberlain, R. A.
Hudson, J H. (Ealing, W.)
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Champion, A. J.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Price, M. Philips


Clitherow, Dr. R.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Proctor, W. T.


Cluse, W. S.
Hughes, Lt. H. D (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Pryde, D. J.


Cobb, F. A.
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Pursey, Cmdr. K.


Cocks, F. S.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Ranger, J.


Coldrick, W.
Irving, W. J.
Rankin, J.


Collick, P.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Reeves, J.


Collindridge, F.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Raid, T. (Swindon)


Collins, V. J.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Richards, R.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Corlett, Dr. J.
Keenan, W.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Cove, W G.
King, E. M.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Crawley, Flt.-Lieut. A
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Royle, C.


Daggar, G.
Kinley, J.
Sargood, R


Daines, P.
Kirkwood, D.
Scollan, T.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Lang, G.
Segal, Dr. S


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lavers, S.
Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancrat, S.W.)
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Shurmer, P.


Deer, G.
Leslie, J. R.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lever, Ft. Off. N. H.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Delargy, Captain H. J.
Levy, B. W
Skeffington, A. M.


Diamond, J.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Dobbie, W.
Lindgren, G. S.
Skinnard, F. W.


Douglas, F. C. R
Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)
Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir B. (Rotherhithe)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lipson, D. L.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Dumpleton, C. W
Logan, D. G.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Dye, S.
Lyne, A. W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C
McAllister, G.
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Edelman, M.
McEntee, V. La T.
Sorensen, R. W.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
McGhee, H. G.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
McGovern, J.
Sparks, J. A.


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Mack, J. D.
Stamford, W


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Steele, T.




Stephen, C.
Tolley, L.
Wilkins, W. A.


Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Stokes, R. R.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Williams, D, J. (Neath)


Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Viant, S. P.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Stross, Dr. B.
Wadsworth, G.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Stubbs, A. E.
Walkden, E.
Willis, E.


Swingler, S
Walker, G. H.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Symonds, Maj. A. L
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Wise, Major F. J.


Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow. E.)
Woodburn, A.


Taylor, R. (Morpeth)
Warbey, W. N.
Yates, V. F.


Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Watson, W. M.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Wells, P L. (Faversham)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.
Zilliacus, K.


Tiffany, S.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)



Timmons, J.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Tilterington, M. F.
Wigg, Col. G. E.
Mr. Joseph Henderson and




Mr. Simmons.




NOES.


Aitken, Hon. Max
Head, Brig. A. H.
Osborne, C.


Assheton, Rt, Hon. R
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Baldwin, A. E.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Barlow, Sir J.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Poole, O. B. S. (Osweslry)


Baxter, A. B.
Hollis, M. C.
Prescott, Stanley


Beamish, Maj. T. V H.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Price-While, Lt.-Col. D.


Beechman, N. A
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Raikes, H. V.


Bennett, Sir P.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Birch, Nigel
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Boothby, R.
Jarvis, Sir J.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Bossom, A. C
Jeffreys, General Sir G
Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)


Bower, N.
Jennings, R.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W
Ropner, Col. L.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Keeling, E. H.
Ross, Sir R.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G- T.
Lambert, Kort. G.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Savory, Prof. D. L


Butler, Rt. Hon. R A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Langford-Holt, J.
Scott, Lord W.


Carson, E.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Challen, C.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Linstead, H. N.
Snadden, W. M.


Cliffton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G
Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Spence, H. R.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Corbett Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E.
Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Crowder, Capt. J. F. E
Mackeson, Lt. Col. H. R.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Cuthbert W. N.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Studholme, H. G.


Davidson, Viscountess
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Sutcliffe, H.


Digby, Maj. S. W.
Maclean, Brig. F. H R. (Lancaster)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
MacLeod, Capt. J.
Teeling, William


Donner, Sqn,-Ldr. P. W
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Drayson, G. B.
Macpherson, Maj. N- (Dumfries)
Thornton-Keimley, C. N.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T (Richmond)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A F.


Duthie, W. S.
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Touche, G. C.


Eccles, D. M.
Marples, A. E.
Turton, R. H.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A
Marsden, Capt. A.
Vane, W. M. T.


Erroll, F. J.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Mellor, Sir J.
Walker-Smith, D.


Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G.
Molson, A. H. E.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
York, C.


Gates, Maj. E. E
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partrick)


Glyn, Sir R.
Neven-Spencs, Sir B.



Gridley, Sir A.
Nield, B. (Chester)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Grimston, R. V.
Noble, Comdr. A H. P.
Mr. Drewe and


Hare, Lt.-Col. Hn. J. H. (W'db'ge)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Commander Agnew


Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL INSURANCE [MONEY] (No. 2)

Resolution reported:

"That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to establish an extended system of national insurance providing pecuniary payments by way of unemployment benefit, sickness benefit, maternity benefit, retirement pension, widows' benefit,

guardian's allowance and death grant, and to provide for the making of payments towards the cost of a national health service, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of contributions towards the cost of benefit payable under the said Act and any other payments to be made out of the National Insurance Fund established thereunder, being contributions not exceeding in the aggregate sums computed in accordance with the following provisions, that is to say:

For each contribution as a self-employed person paid under the said Act by a person over the age of eighteen there may be paid


the sum (hereinafter referred to as the "Exchequer supplement ") in the case of a contribution paid by a man, of one shilling and one penny and, in the case of a contribution paid by a woman, of elevenpence:

Provided that, if the Treasury by order under the said Act made with a view to maintaining a stable level of employment, increase the rate of any contribution for which the Exchequer supplement is payable, they shall have power also to increase by the order the rate of the Exchequer supplement for that contribution, but in such manner as not to affect (except so far as appears to them to be expedient for convenience of calculation) the proportion which the rate of the supplement bears to that of the contribution."

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL

Order for Consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.

4.5 p.m.

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): I beg to move,
That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of the Amendments in Clauses 8, 59, 62 and 71 and Schedule 1, standing on the Notice Paper in my name.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the recommittal Motion, in line 4, at the end, to add:
 and in respect of the new Clause (Provision as to transfer and compensation of employees of approved societies) standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Peake and in respect of the new Clause (National Employment Guidance Council and local employment guidance committees) standing on the Notice Paper in my name.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CLAUSE 8.—(General provisions as to payment and collection of contributions, etc.)

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. Lindgren): I beg to move, in page 8, line 15, at the end, to insert:
 and for treating, for the purpose aforesaid, contributions payable by an employer on behalf of an insured person, but not paid, as paid where the failure to pay is shown not to have been with the consent or connivance of, or attributable to any negligence on the part of, the insured person.

This addition is intended to carry out an undertaking given by the Minister during the Committee stage. My right hon. Friend agreed to consider, between then and the Report stage, making clear, in the Clause, that an insured person should not suffer, in any way, loss of benefit by reason of the default of an employer to pay contributions which were due to be paid.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

Mrs. Castle: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 4, to leave out:
 or attributable to any negligence on the part of.
When I raised this point in Committee upstairs, the Minister admitted that the Bill, as it then stood, was inadequate on a matter of very great importance, in that it failed to give the protection to the employed person which he or she should have, against the failure of the employer to carry out a duty under the Bill to make the necessary deductions. My right hon. Friend promised to meet this point, provided he could guard himself against the possibility of collusion between the employer and the employed person. I suggest that his Amendment goes very much further than that. I would remind him that, in the Bill, he has placed the duty of making deductions squarely on the shoulders of the employer. By introducing this saving factor of negligence on the part of the insured person, he is putting the responsibility back again on to the contributor's shoulders. I suggest that the interpretation of the word "negligence" could be very wide indeed and could rob employed persons of the safeguard which we are seeking to give them. For those reasons, I urge my right hon. Friend, in view of the fact that he is now covered against collusion between the employer and the employed person, to reinforce the safeguard given to the contributor, and not to introduce this very wide factor of negligence, which may undermine the whole undertaking.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: In view of what my hon. Friend has said I do not think it necessary to take up much time in support of the Amendment, but I want to emphasise one point which she made, and which I think was conclusive. If the Minister keeps the Amendment in the form which


he has it on the Order Paper, and resists the Amendment to the Amendment which is now moved, he will take away with one hand what he is giving with the other. It would be impossible to imagine any case in which a deduction has been made from an employee's pay and withheld from the Ministry, without it being possible to argue that there must have been some negligence on the part of the employed man. The employed man can protect himself completely by demanding every pay day to see his card with the appropriate stamp on it, but we all know that many men will not do it and even those who make it a weekly practice at the beginning, will as the years pass, stop doing so. I think the Minister is absolutely right in putting into his Amendment the provision against connivance or consent. Obviously an employed man who connives at or consents to a fraud of this character ought not to have the benefits of this scheme, but to say he shall be deprived of the protection now offered if guilty of "any negligence "Is to provide a protection of which nobody in the end will be able to avail himself. I do not think there is any wide disagreement between the Amendment moved by the Minister and our Amendment to it. I am sure a man ought to be protected against a fraudulent employer, even if the fraud is assisted by the employee's failure to demand weekly production of the cards.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. J. Griffiths: We had a discussion about this matter in Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) then moved an Amendment. I indicated that I could not accept the Amendment in the form in which it was then presented, and I asked her to withdraw it I undertook to look into the matter again and if necessary to make the desired change in the Bill. This is a very important problem. We had experience of this problem in the old days when contributions were at a much lower level than those in the new Bill. The temptation to avoid paying contributions is much greater now, and, therefore, the protection must also be stronger. What we are anxious about is that the person who works for an employer shall not, if the employer defrauds, be penalised, unless he enters into collusion with the, employer, or unless he is negligent. I do not think I am asking too much when I

ask for the cooperation of employees themselves, because without their cooperation we shall be dependent almost entirely on our inspectors seeing that employers stamp cards, and of course it is possible to escape the attention of inspections at times. Thus, it is necessary also to have the full cooperation of employees themselves. In the Amendment which I have proposed, I have carried out fully what I promised to the Committee upstairs, namely, protecting the employee against collusion, and, secondly, securing the cooperation of the employees against negligence.
As I indicated, what we propose to do under the new scheme for the protection of the men, is at the end of each year to issue to each contributor a record of the contributions of the previous year. He will then know exactly where he stands. I am sure it is not asking too much, when a man gets his contribution cards and finds his cards have not been stamped and knows that that is due to default on the part of the employer, to expect that he will bring it to our attention. In cases of this kind if we took action under the Amendment, particularly within the Amendment to the Amendment, the man would have a right of appeal, and surely a tribunal with an independent chairman would see to it that we were not using the powers unnecessarily. I have given this matter anxious consideration, and I appreciate the difficulty of the problem I do not think I am asking too much, in asking employees to aid in their own protection. Where a man has fulfilled the intention of this Clause and where the employer has not paid the contribution although he has deducted it from the man's wages, while we shall never probably recover the contribution, we propose to give hill credit to that man I think it is only reasonable and fair then that all concerned should aid in their own protection.

Mr. McGovern: No one can deny that the Minister has gone to great lengths in this Measure in trying to give justice to those who are insured, but I agree that if this provision were limited to connivance or consent one could dispense with the other words. The Minister has given us some explanation of what might be termed negligence. I would rather see negligence more strictly defined, and the use of the word here is too wide in my estimation. Employers may take


on men for say six months, and during those six months some default may take place on the part of employers. A man may not know about it. After all, one realises that an employee will be chary about going every week and asking to see his cards. An employer generally stamps a man's cards in the office, and the employee does not see the cards, in most cases, until the end of six months, when they are handed to him to give to his society. During that period default may take place. It may be that the employee is negligent to the extent that he did not see the cards week by week. It is all very well for the Parliamentary Secretary to shake his head, but if it is as simple as that, why not put it in the Clause? An employee may be negligent in not asking to see his cards. I have heard it said that employees should see their cards stamped week by week. If an employee asked to see his cards week by week, in many cases it would be resented by the employer. While desiring the greatest possible protection for the Minister, the Fund, and the community, I think the words he proposes to insert are too wide. Here in Parliament we are often told it does not matter what the Minister says; all that matters is what is in the Bill. The Minister's statement is not binding. It may be that failure to inspect the cards week by week might be deemed extreme negligence on the part of the individual and, therefore, sufficient to prevent him enjoying the benefits. I would rather see these words
 or attributable to any negligence on the part of.
withdrawn, or, at least, a definition of "negligence "Inserted.

Mr. Charles Williams: At first I viewed this Amendment to the Amendment with complete impartiality, but after the very attractive way in which it has been moved by the hon. Lady, after the extremely able legal argument of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman), and the hard commonsense speech of the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), I feel inclined to vote for it. I listened very carefully to what the Minister said, and I realise his difficulties. Every Member in the Committee wants to see this Fund administered fairly and properly. But, as I understand it, this point of negligence ought not to be left to what a Minister says here. This is simply another instance

of what has been happening in Bill after Bill. This Amendment is backed by three hon. Members opposite who have great knowledge of this subject, who say that it would not be fair to the workers as a whole to leave the Bill as it is at the moment, and that the Minister's Amendment does not adequately protect the workers' position. Commonsense demands, therefore, that the negligence of the employed person should be much more closely defined.
The Minister said that a person could look at his card, that there would be more inducement to do so because he would have more to pay. There is a great deal in that, but nowadays there are many more cards to be looked at than there used to be. I am sure that nine out of ten of us loathe looking at cards, and avoid doing so, unless we cannot possibly help it. I feel that when Government supporters move an Amendment in the way in which this has been moved, we should attach great weight to their proposal. Their action may have great significance [An HON. MEMBER: "Be serious "]. I hope we shall find one or two of the tame Socialists opposite joining the ranks of the thinkers. Unless I hear from the Minister a much stronger case, on the grounds of commonsense and legality, I shall be forced to support this Amendment to the Amendment.

Mr. S. Silverman: I want to make a practical suggestion to the Minister. I felt that what he said was perfectly fair, and if the thing were to be administered only in that way none of us would have any doubts at all. I suggest he should add to his proposed Amendment power to make regulations defining "negligence," for the purpose of this Amendment. I think we would all be content with that, and everybody's object would be secured.

Mr. Stephen: I have had experience of these cards. A person gets his card, sees that he is in arrears, and then queries it. But then he does not know what to do next, and continues to wait. Unfortunately, some of these people have come to me, and I have had a lot of trouble trying to put the matter right. I suggest to the Minister that it should be made plain that if a person has a query to make as to the accuracy of his card he should go to the local National Insurance Officer.

Mr. Osbert Peake: I am sure the Committee does not want to take up a great deal of time on this Amendment, which is not of a vital character. Having listened to the discussion, I sympathise with the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, proposed by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). The circumstances envisaged by that Amendment are these: A man falls sick, or unemployed. He applies for benefit. He goes to the employment exchange, and there is told, "There are not sufficient stamps on your card." He says, "That is not my fault; that is my employer's fault," and the insurance officer replies, "You ought to have seen that your employer put the stamps on your card."If such a duty is to be laid on the employee, it ought to be stated in terms in the Bill or, alternatively, as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) suggests, in the regulations. The words
 attributable to any negligence on the part of the insured person,
as forming the ground for disqualification for benefit, are, in my opinion, much too vague. If a duty is to be placed on the insured person to see that his card is stamped week by week, that duty ought to be expressed in clear terms, either in the Bill or the regulations. I hope the Minister has not said the last word on this matter, and that he will give it further consideration before the Bill becomes law.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I would like to look into this point again but, frankly, I do not think the right solution is to attempt to do it by regulations. To define in the regulations what is or what is not negligence would, I think, be wrong. However, I will see if some other way can be found. I do not think I am asking too much, in asking persons to see that their cards are properly stamped. Each year we shall give them a complete record of their contributions for the previous year, and I think that if they find it deficient, they should go to their local National Insurance office. I am not disposed to leave out of the Bill entirely the provision by which we can get after people who have been grossly negligent.

Mr. Hector Hughes: This seems to he a completely artificial issue. There is no magic about the meaning of the word negligence."It is well

known in law and in practice. Negligence, in law, means doing something which a reasonable person would not do, or omitting to do something which a reasonable person would do. I think the Amendment to the proposed Amendment should fall, as being unreasonable, and that my right hon. Friend's Amendment, as drafted, should stand.

Mr. Harold Roberts: I agree that to define "negligence" by regulation would be difficult, if not impossible. But I think it unfortunate that we should leave in jeopardy what is not a very well defined, common law term. I sincerely hope the Minister will see his way to accept the proposal.

Mrs. Castle: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment to the Amendment.

Hon, Members: No.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.

Proposed words there inserted.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

CLAUSE 11.—(Right to unemployment and sickness benefit.)

Mr. J. Griffiths: I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, to leave out from "employment,"To the end of the Subsection.
It might be convenient to deal at the same time with two later Amendments—in page 11, to leave out line 30, and also in page 11, line 42, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 45. These Amendments would enable me to carry out the changes which I indicated when we took the second Money Resolution on Friday last. Their effect will be to put the self-employed person on the same level and on the same terms as persons in Class 1, so far as sickness benefit is concerned. I indicated to the Committee during the consideration of the Money Resolution last Friday that I would like to say a few words on this problem at the present stage. I begin by giving briefly the history of this matter. For the first time we are bringing self-employed persons in this country within the ambit of our insurance schemes. Hitherto, these schemes have been confined to those under a contract of service, and, in the case of non-manual workers, even they were included only


when the income was below a certain limit laid down by this House. We are now bringing in self-employed persons generally into insurance, with the exception of unemployment benefit for reasons which are obvious. I have said before that there are, according to our estimation, about 2,800,000 in this class, and their economic circumstances vary enormously.
The question of the administration of sickness benefit is one of great importance and complexity with this section of the community. Sir William Beveridge in his Report dealt fairly exhaustively with this problem and, having regard to the difficulties of check, control and administration, he recommended that the desirable thing in making provision for sickness benefit for the self-employed was that there should be a waiting period of 13 weeks. I understand the reason why he recommended that proposal. Later on, however, we had a Coalition White Paper which suggested that the period should be reduced to a month and that the self-employed should wait 24 days before drawing sickness benefit. During the Second Reading of the present Bill there was a great deal of criticism of this, and some attempt was made then, and has been made since, to make party capital out of the matter. I do not think there is any question of party because it was a Member of the Liberal Party who made the original proposal, and a Coalition Government, representing all parties, which modified it. I cannot understand why anybody should describe it, as I saw it described in a newspaper the other day, as an example of the class prejudice of the Labour Party and the Labour Government.
I was urged horn all sides during the Second Reading and the Committee stage to reduce the four weeks to some shorter period and to put the self-employed on exactly the same terms as the employed class. I promised during the Committee stage to make investigations and I invited hon. Members in the Commitee—and also members of the public outside—to indicate to me what was the desire of the self-employed in this matter. It is very difficult to secure the opinion of many members of this section of the community. Nevertheless I had a good deal of help from some Members of the

Committee who discussed the matter with their constituents and afterwards told me their views I also had the advantage of meeting a very representative deputation representing the retail traders in the country, and I should like to pay my tribute to the members of that deputation for the fairness with which they discussed the whole problem and appreciated the difficulties and complexities. They urged me to include them and offered to cooperate in every possible way to discover some method of check and control.
I have come to the conclusion that the right thing to do in all the circumstances is to place the self-employed on exactly the same terms as an employed person with regard to sickness benefit, which will be paid after three days of incapacity. One major reason for my decision is that it makes the scheme a unified one, and I am very glad to be able to do that. When we were discussing the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Bill some hon. Members urged me to bring the self-employed in then, but the self-employed indicated that they did not want to come into that Bill for reasons which I need not enter into now. They felt they would get adequate cover if I did what I am doing now. I feel certain that the Amendment will be accepted by the Committee this afternoon—I hope unanimously—and will become part of the Bill.
Two things have concerned me very deeply and continue to worry me now. The first is still the problem of check and control. If a person in Class I is sick and claims benefit we have a check. If he has lost work we can confirm it. But in the case under discussion the man or woman is his or her own employer so that there is not the check which we get in Class I. That is a very difficult problem and when we come to administer the scheme I shall seek—and I am sure I shall obtain—the cooperation of the organisations representing self-employed persons as to how best we can effect the administration. The fact that we shall have a comprehensive net work of offices all over the country will assist us in this, and we shall also have local committees, representative of this section of the community, to advise us on these problems. In that way we hope to be able to meet and overcome the difficulties and complexities.
The second matter that worried me was, as I indicated from the very beginning, that if I made this change in the Bill it would mean a fairly substantial increase in the contribution, and the new rate of 6s. 2d. a week is going to be a very serious expense for large sections of the self-+ employed people of this country. For some, of course, it will not be a great burden, but for others it will, and I am afraid we may increase what I was very anxious to keep down—the number of people who, because of the high contribution, seek to be released from the obligation under the Bill. I refer to the Clause which allows those with incomes of less than £2 a week to claim exemption. I should be very sorry if that was one of the consequences of trying to do what I think to be right and fair. All the opinion I have sounded in the House and outside has urged me to do this. I have no desire to be unfair in any way, and in fact I am very glad to he the first Minister to bring the self-employed into a national insurance scheme. We are taking a risk, but with cooperation all round, I hope that we shall he able to minimise it.

Mr. Beeehman: As the mover in Committee of an Amendment proposing that the waiting period be abolished or reduced I would express my appreciation of the great trouble which the Minister has taken to deal with the representations which have been made to him. Of course, I am glad, as are all of us, that the waiting period is now to be abolished. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I am much concerned at the size of the proposed contribution. I would like to remind him that I put forward the Amendment on the footing that it would be unwise, and indeed impracticable, to put up the contribution to anything like the height which is now proposed.
I did put forward some suggestions on how the money could be found. As I understand the situation, what has to be found in order to pay for doing away with the waiting period, is about £3,500,000 a year. I know that that is quite, a large sum, but in relation to what it achieves it is not unduly great. Suggestions I made were objected to by the Minister, because he thought that they were actuarially unsound. I am hound to tell him that, on reflection, I was impressed by what he said, but at the same time I agree with what is stated in a leading article in "The

Times "Today, that the principle upon which the proposed contribution by the self-employed person is based is erroneous.
I understand that the so-called self-employed person is looked at by the officials as though he were really two people, an employer and an employee, and they say that he must therefore make, as it were, a double contribution. I think that is an entirely fallacious way of looking at the self-employed person. The right hon. Gentleman says that he and his party have sympathy for the sell-employed person, and I accept what he says, but we are dealing here not only with some people who are well off but with a large number of humble folk such as smallholders, shopkeepers, carpenters, fishermen and others. It is wrong to look upon those people as standing in that dual capacity. I hope the Minister will give consideration to this point that the contribution which is proposed has been thought out upon an entirely erroneous principle. The sum involved is only £3,500,000.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. R. A. Butler: As I said in discussing the Money Resolution, we are very grateful to the Minister for learning so quickly how to make his Bill better. This is an example of how the Committee has been able to engage in constructive work, and we all welcome it in the spirit which the Minister has indicated. There are various points about which I wish to ask questions of the Minister. I am disappointed that he has not been able to give us any indication of the manner in which this part of the scheme will be administered He has referred to the self-employed person represented by the retail traders' organisation, and amounting, we are told, to about 1,000,000 persons. No doubt that representation is close and exact That body has declared that it can not only administer the scheme in such a way as to make it fair to the Fund in general; they have also said that their members are ready and willing to pay the large contribution of 6s. 2d. a week. We must, therefore, accept what they say as being representative of a very large and able body of people, as the Minister has said. A far larger number of the self-employed—about.1,800,000—are not capable of being represented by any single body.
I would ask the Minister what information he has received from the retail traders


as to the manner in which the scheme can be administered by their members, shopkeepers and others, upon whom it is comparatively easy to check-up, and what information he has about the possibility of administering the scheme for the other 1,800,000 self-employed, such as those in more lonely parts of the country. Some of these people live in remote districts, perhaps at a great distance from any kind of social security office.
As I mentioned in Committee, unless the Bill works properly it will be disappointing. We have the very definite evidence of Sir William Beveridge, who said in no uncertain terms that it would be impossible to administer this sort of scheme without a longer waiting period. We also have the evidence of the Coalition Government to the same effect. I, personally, think that, in the case of the retail traders, it might be possible for the Minister to give the Committee a little more information about some system. For example, the self-employed person might sign a paper when sick, and thereby indicate to the authorities the days on which he was sick. That would have to be done in a way which would satisfy the authorities. Did the Minister obtain from the retailers' organisation any undertaking that the scheme could be administered by them, with the aid of their members? It is very disappointing not to have been told by the Minister in his opening speech anything about these matters, and I hope that he will remedy that defect. Can he give us any assurance how he proposes to administer the scheme? For example, take the case of a lonely farrier in a remote village, perhaps in some of the more mountainous parts of the country. He is sick for a certain period. He will be attempting, poor man, to understand and honestly to carry out the terms of Clause 11.
The most interesting part of the Minister's speech was that in which he said he had decided to bring the self-employed up to the same level as the other contributors, not only by reducing the waiting period to the same period as for the others, but also by submitting the self-employed to the intricacies of what are known as the linking-up days of unemployment. The scheme has to be administered—let us face the fact—according to the exact terms of Clause 11, of which Subsection (2, c) says:

 subject in the case of a self-employed person to regulations, any two days of interruption of employment, whether consecutive or not, within a period of six consecutive days shall be treated as a period of interruption of employment.
That is defined in the previous paragraph (b). It goes on:
 and any two such periods separated by a period of not more than thirteen weeks shall be treated as one period of interruption of employment.
That means that it will be necessary for the authorities to be perfectly satisfied that in a period of 13 weeks, it may be either by the linking up of the two days and the six days, or by the fact that excluding the Sunday the lonely farrier is in fact sick through no fault of his own and absent from his forge on one day per week in eight consecutive weeks. We are excluding the Sunday, and taking into consideration the two days within the six days. If the scheme is to be properly administered the Minister must satisfy himself that his Department can satisfy other members of the Fund that the farrier is indeed carrying out the exact terms of the law.
On good administration this Bill depends. I am right in putting this matter fairly before the Committee. The Minister gave us no indication how he hopes the scheme will be administered. I hope he will give us a little more reassurance, so that we may feel that it can be done. I should have preferred the Minister to give this concession, in so far as he is giving it, but not to include the linking-up period for the self-employed. That is far too complicated. Perhaps he will explain what animated him in giving the concession.
Had he given the rest of the concession, we would still have had the whole substance, but we would not have had this odious complication which makes administration in the lonely districts almost impossible. We should have had the three days but not this complication of the linking up period. There would have been one other advantage. If my actuarial calculations are correct, if the Minister had not gone quite so far as the linking up period, he would have relieved the contributor of paying a halfpenny a week. The increase would have been 4½d., because it is the intense complication, partly of the linking up period, which makes the increase 5d. This may be a detail, but it is important for us to draw the attention of the Committee


and those outside to the manner of administering this scheme, and I think that in this particular detail the Minister would have a headache.
I now follow the Minister and the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Beechman) on the question of contributions. We understand that one million of these self-employed are ready to pay this contribution. All honour to them and good luck to them, in undertaking these contributions and joining the scheme. I should like to hear from the Minister whether he has any indication that all our other friends—hedgers, ditchers, mole-catchers, farriers and other rural craftsmen, the backbone of the country, who work on their own in the very remote country districts—are ready to pay this extra contribution. I have a letter from one of them who tells me that at present he pays out 6s. 6d. weekly in various contributions, of which 2s. 2d. weekly is for the National Health Insurance stamp. Presumably threepence or so may go weekly to the hospital scheme, which, thanks to the new health scheme, he soon will not have to pay, though will probably have to pay contributions in some other way. Part of that 6s. 6d. is for voluntary insurance which the man wishes to continue and which the Minister said he would encourage. If one takes away the present health insurance contribution, 4s. 4d. is left. Fourpence of that is for the hospital scheme and that leaves 4s. which the man wishes to continue paying towards private policies in which he is interested. There is no reason why this Bill should discourage those who have taken out private policies in the past and wish to continue them. There will be this 6s. 2d. added to the 4s. that remains for the man's own private policies and other schemes which there is no reason for him not to continue. He will have to put aside some 10s. 2d. a week out of his modest earnings to face the problem of insurance. The Committee must realise that this is a great problem in the successful carrying out of the scheme.
It would be wrong of us not to acknowledge that the Minister has been progressive and forward-looking in this matter, and we should thank the Minister for having listened to the representations made, not only from this side but from all parties. But, before we leave this matter, we deserve from the Minister

these two assurances, first, that he knows how to administer this scheme in respect of the linking-up period for those self-employed persons who are not members of the retail traders' organisation and live in lonely districts carrying on their lonely crafts; second, an assurance on how many non-members of the retail traders' organisation have accepted and are likely to be acquiescent in the payment of this contribution, over and above their private insurance schemes.

Mr. Rhys Davies: The Minister has, in this matter yielded to argument and pressure. He has done well to unify the scheme in relation to the payment of sickness benefit but, let us be clear, this is not a new problem. There are tens of thousands of self-employed persons already within the present National Health Insurance Scheme—those who were once compulsorily insured and later entered into business on their own account. The Minister has, in this connection, been faced with a simple problem of what is called actuarial calculation. Hon. Members must not complain about the increased contributions if they accept the actuarial basis of the Bill. An hon. Member opposite shakes his head; he seems to know more about finance than I do, but hon. Members must not at this stage complain about the increased contributions. The basis the Minister has to work on all the time is what is the experience of the actual administrator. It is of course, a very difficult task to administer sickness benefit for those who are self-employed.

Mr. Beechman: The hon. Member seems to refer to me. I am not disputing that there are difficulties in the way of actuarial computation. I quite agree. But I say that the contribution is based on an erroneous principle in that there is an under-estimation of what could be contributed by the State for the reasons which I explained in my speech.

Mr. Rhys Davies: The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Liberal Party. I think he was in the House when the present Leader of the Opposition as Chancellor of the Exchequer reduced the annual State grant by £2¼ million to the Health Insurance scheme. The present contributions by the way, of the self-employed person equals the total contribution of both employer and employed. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron


Walden (Mr. Butler) works out the figures, I am not so sure that he will find that the self-employed person, from the point of view of contributions and benefits will be any better off proportionately under the present than under the original proposal.
What are the difficulties? As Members of Parliament they must face this issue. If we do not face it now we shall have to later on. When State sickness benefit is paid the recipient must be totally incapacitated from following any employment. That is one test, but when the insured is an employed person, and does not return to work when he recovers his health, he may be dismissed his employment. But that latter leverage does not apply to the self-employed. Who, therefore, is going to decide when the self-employed person is totally incapacitated from following any employment? The trouble about the present administration—and we must face up to it—is that a self-employed person really incapable of a full day's work may be able at the same time to do just a little for his own business. That is the issue. Whatever Members of Parliament may say today, when this scheme comes into operation that is the problem they will have to face in letters from their constituents.
The Minister has done very well in bringing this proposal forward, and I am glad of one thing which he has not done. A suggestion was made by some Members that the financial burden of this improvement for the self-employed should fall on the compulsorily insured. The self-employed person ought, after all, to stand up to his own financial responsibilities. I am sure that the Minister's staff know already the actuarial considerations in respect of the tens of thousands of self-employed persons who are now voluntary contributors. I am glad, in a way, that the Minister has done this, but I am not so certain that the self-employed person will be as satisfied as he would have been under the original proposal.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Oliver Poole: I congratulate the Minister on facing up to this problem with the very bold provision that he is now bringing into this Bill. In all the discussions on Second Reading and in Committee it was clear that there was no dispute as to the necessity for

doing this; it was purely a matter of practical administration, Everybody knows the difficulty of administering sickness benefit, and the Committee must remember that the Minister is faced with a very difficult task because he is proposing to sweep away the whole of the existing machinery for administering sickness benefit and to introduce a new machinery of his own. It is a great problem and it comes down to this, that the success or otherwise of this scheme bringing in the self-employed person, will depend a great deal on the self-employed person himself. I have no fear that the Minister will be disappointed. If he will refer to Subsection (2, c) of this Clause, he will find that it is extremely difficult to understand, and I think that people in the villages, the self-employed, will have difficulty in understanding it—

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT

5.3 p.m.

Whereupon, The GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD (VICE-ADMIRAL. SIR GEOFFREY BLAKE) being come with a Message, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Education Act, 1946.
2. Post Office and Telegraph (Money) Act, 1946.
3. Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act, 1946.
4. North West Midlands Joint Electricity Authority Order Confirmation Act, 1946.
5. Bucks Water Board Act, 1946.
6. Newport (Isle of Wight) Corporation Act, 1946.

And to the following Measures passed under the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919:

1. Ecclesiastical Commissioners (Curate Grants) Measure, 1946.
2. Clergy Pensions (Supplementary Pensions) Measure, 1946.
3. Benefices (Suspension of Presentation) Measure, 1946.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL INSURANCE (RECOMMITTED) BILL

Again considered in Committee.

[Mr. HUBERT BEAUMONT in the Chair]

CLAUSE 11.—(Right to unemployment and sickness benefit.>)

Amendment proposed; In page 11, line 12, to leave out from "employment,"To the end of the Subsection.—[Mr. J. Griffiths.]

Question again proposed "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

5.14 p.m.

Mr. Poole: I was expressing my doubts about the ability of some of the self-employed people, particularly in the villages, fully to understand the content of Clause 11 (2c). If they do not understand it, it will be impossible for the Minister to rely on seeing that the provisions are carried out correctly. When the right hon. Gentleman answers the questions which have been put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler), I hope he will also deal with the case of people in rural districts who work only on certain days of the week, and say how they can link up the days when they do not work. What is to happen about wet days, when some of the middle aged men have rheumatism? Many of them do not go out on those occasions, and can legitimately say that they were sick on those days. I would have preferred provisions bringing in the self-employed people without bringing in the link-up days.
Reference has been made to the size of the contribution, particularly in regard to the small men in small country towns. The Minister should not pay too much attention to complaints that he gets now as to the size of the contribution, from these people. I have spent a great deal of my life trying to persuade people to pay insurance premiums, and though I have found difficulty in doing it, I have found no difficulty in persuading them to make a claim.

Mr. J. Griffiths: This is a very difficult problem. Hon. Members on all sides of the Committee have been pressing me, to do this; now they begin to realise how difficult it is. However, I have looked into all these problems and I do not

think—complicated as it looks in the Clause—that there will be any difficulty in getting the self-employed to understand the link-up. I used to understand it when I worked in the pit, although I left school at 12 years of age. People will soon discover how it works, and will work it adequately. I do not anticipate any difficulty about that at all. I could have left this provision out, but it would have reduced the additional contribution by one half, which would cause a headache for everyone. Since the self-employed are so very keen on being put on the same footing as other persons, I felt I ought to provide the link-up as well. I have done my best to find out the views of this section of the community. The only representations I have received have requested that I should do what I am doing now. That includes every one who has spoken to me about this problem and includes large numbers of hon. Members who speak for the farming community, the hedgers and ditchers, and others of whom we have heard in discussions on this Bill.
As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), a large number of substantially self-employed people are already covered as voluntary contributors. A great deal of experience can be gathered from them. I have been asked what suggestions the retail traders put to me, and have not answered previously, because I wanted to examine what they propose. Whatever administration is adopted, I cannot apply it merely to them—but have to apply it to the whole of the self-employed. They proposed that when the sickness benefit is claimed, it should be claimed on a form stating that on certain dates they have been ill and the illness should be proved by an appropriate doctor's certificate also indicating that on those days they had been incapacitated and had not done any work. I am examining that proposal, and wish to see how it could be applicable to others besides the retail traders
For the first time we shall have a complete network of local offices with local administration and local advisory councils. My Ministry will be in closer touch with the insured person than has been the case in any experience of this work before. I rely on that, and on the integrity and cooperation of everyone concerned. We are


doing this at the request of the self-employed. We are taking risks in doing it, and look to them for cooperation in every way to make that risk worth while.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: I did not have the advantage of being a Member of the Standing Committee on this Bill, but I had an opportunity of bringing this matter to the attention of the Minister in a speech in the Second Reading Debate. I would like to make two points in relation to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Poole), who said that the contributors to the scheme will not object to paying this contibution. That is not my experience. I have had a considerable amount of correspondence in which it has been said that the amount of contribution expected from the self-employed persons is very considerable to people who are earning only a very small amount of money, and I have also received complaints based on the fact that these contributors will not get any unemployment benefit. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to meet them on that matter. Although I know the difficulty, it seems to me that a contribution of 6s. 2d. a week, for which sickness benefit only is obtained—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I know there are pension rights—is a very large one.

Mr. Poole: I am sure the hon. Member does not wish to misrepresent what I said. I fully appreciate that there may be complaints now about the size of the contribution, but when people begin to feel the full benefit of the scheme, those complaints will cease.

Mr. Leslie: I happen to know quite a number of small traders, many of whom were shop assistants who later became self-employed persons. On no occasion have they complained to me about the increase in the contribution when they have realised what it will mean to them. This provision will be a Godsend to the large army of ex-Servicemen who, on returning to civil life, have been granted licences and have become self-employed. Therefore. I welcome the Minister's action.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 11, leave out line 30.—[Mr. Griffiths.]

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 11 line 34, after "periods," To insert not."
This Amendment and the next Amendment, in page 11, line 35, are consequential one upon the other. They transfer the word "not" from line 35 to line 34, and this makes for greater clarity and for a much more accurate operation of the linking-up Clause as required for the 13 weeks linking-up rule.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 11, line 35, leave out "not."

In line 42, leave out from the beginning to the end of line 45.—[Mr. Lindgren.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 59.—(Married women.)

Mr. J. Griffiths: I beg to move, in page 50, line 26, to leave out from "woman," To the end of line 27. and to insert:
, if she so elects or if she does not elect otherwise (as may be provided by the regulations).
There was a good deal of discussion in the Standing Committee about the treatment of married women under the scheme, and there was, in particular, criticism of the proposal to exclude employed married women from insurance unless they specifically elected on marriage to continue in the scheme. I undertook to look into the matter to see whether the position could be reversed. I was urged to make the election a positive one on the part of the married women, and not to deem them to be outside the scheme unless they elected to come in. It was a question of contracting in or contracting out. I have given serious consideration to the matter, and I have decided to amend the Clause on the lines indicated in the Amendment.
Briefly, it is proposed that women who are employed persons and who get married will then have to choose whether or not they wish to be in the scheme. The decision will be a positive one. Unless a woman elects to contract out of the scheme, she will be deemed to be inside it. If a woman is in employment and then gets married, we shall treat her as still being in insurance unless she elects, by her positive action, to go outside the scheme. I think that is a fair


position, I think it right to put upon the married woman the obligation to contract in or out of the scheme. On the other hand, the position is different with women who are self-employed, and women who go into the non-employed class. For those who are self-employed, I propose that they should elect to come into the scheme. We want that action to be a positive one also. Similarly, in the cases of the very large number of women who are employed, who get married, and who then cease to follow a gainful occupation, and become housewives and work in the home, they may from that time become members of what are described in the Bill as the non-employed section. They have to elect to come under the scheme. In the case of women who are in industry, in class one, on marriage, if they want to go outside the scheme, they have to elect to do so, and if they do not so elect, we treat them as being inside the scheme. For the self employed and the non-employed it must be a positive action by the people themselves. I thought it better to make a clear-cut line and to leave the choice and the action to be taken by the insured contributor herself. I think the change which is proposed will meet the desires of those hon. Members who pressed the matter in Standing Committee, and I hope it will commend itself to hon. Members.

Mr. Naylor: What happens if an employed woman who elected to contract out of the scheme on marriage, wants to return to industry later on? Does she lose any qualification arising from her previous membership owing to her having elected to go out of the scheme after marriage?

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That those words he there inserted."

5.30 p.m.

Mrs. Castle: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, to leave out from "elects,"To the end.
I appreciate the gesture which my right hon. Friend has made in response to the representations which I and others made to him on this point in Standing Committee. I am glad that he has agreed with us that it is a point of substance

whether or not a married woman should have to contract in or contract out. His Amendment, so far as it goes, is very good, but I cannot understand why any distinction should be drawn in this matter between a married woman who continues as an employed person or as a self-employed person or who is a non-employed person. I suggest that right through this Bill my right hon. Friend's approach to married women is unsatisfactory. We have dealt with other facets of that complaint upstairs, and I should be out of Order if I were to attempt to deal with them now. I wish to remind my right hon. Friend that his distinction in the treatment of married women is one which is not drawn by Sir William Beveridge in his Report, where it is suggested that, as with other classes entitled to exception from the scheme, there should be a process of deliberate contracting out in every case. I fail to see why this distinction should be drawn. I wish to urge upon my right hon. Friend that he is giving the impression in this Bill that he is not anxious for married women to insure under his scheme. I believe that that is a most unfortunate impression. Therefore, I urge him to accept my Amendment.

Mr. S. Silverman: I support the Amendment to the proposed Amendment. It is a little difficult to see why, having gone so far to meet what he recognises to be a perfectly genuine and substantial point, my right hon. Friend should falter at it or hedge it around in some way. The plain principle, which I think he accepts, although the wording of hi, Amendment does not really implement it, is that a married woman shall not, on ceasing her employment, cease to he insured unless she so decides. She is to remain insured unless she elects otherwise. I should have thought that the plain way to do that was to insert the words "If she so elects."

Mr. J. Griffiths: I have given a great deal of thought to this matter. The woman who is working, who gets married and continues working, is in the scheme unless she herself, by her own deliberate action, contracts out. Secondly, there are the self-employed women who get married. In their case I say that they ought to take a positive action to come inside the scheme. Thirdly, there are the women who, on marriage, give up work


in a factory or workshop and are thereafter housewives at home. Suppose say that, unless they themselves contract out, I deem them to be in the scheme. I ask hon. Members to consider where I should get to administratively. This is not something which will affect a woman here or there, but it will affect the bulk of women. Suppose we had the position in which, 12 months after a woman was married, one of my inspectors was to say to her, "Twelve months ago you were married and gave up work. Since then you have been a non-employed person and you have been liable to pay 3s. 8d. a week, which you have not paid."The woman would say, "I had not thought of that."That is avoided if she elects to become a non-employed contributor. This is a Bill for the millions, for the mass of the people in this country. Therefore, I am certain that under my proposal I am doing the right thing, and avoiding administrative difficulties which would be impossible to cope with, and which might sink the whole scheme. If, by anything I have said or have not said or done, I have created the impression that I wish to make it difficult for married women to come into this scheme, I say at once that that is not so. On the contrary, I believe that to place the obligation upon them in the way I propose is the better alternative from their point of view.

Mrs. Leah Manning: I understand my right hon. Friend's position with regard to the woman who gives up work when she gets married; that is reasonable. But I do not know why it should apply to the woman who is self-employed, because a great many women who are self-employed before marriage find it quite simple to keep on their business of, say, milliner or dressmaker, after marriage, and I do not know why they should be subject to this differentiation.

Amendment to the proposed Amend-merit negatived.

Proposed words there inserted.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I beg to move, in page 50, line 34, to leave out paragraph (b).
This is consequential on the Amendment which has just been accepted by the Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 62.—(Temporary provision as to unemployment benefit.)

Mr. J. Griffiths: I beg to move, in page 52, line 21, to leave out from "section,"To the end of line z6, and to insert:

(a) shall not proceed on any consideration of the financial resources of the applicant or persons connected with him; but
(b) subject to the foregoing paragraph, shall have regard—

(i) to the particular circumstances of the applicant, including the industrial conditions in the district where he ordinarily resides; and
(ii)"

There may be, later, a desire for a wider discussion on this Clause. There will also be a discussion on an alternative to Clause 62 which is being proposed from the benches opposite, so I will content myself, in moving this Amendment, with a brief explanation of it. In referring to Clause 62 on Second Reading I made it clear that the Government's intention was that when the claims of applicants were considered under this Clause by the tribunal, the tribunal was not authorised or entitled or empowered in any way to apply any kind of means test or needs test: I was urged by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) particularly, and by other lion. Members, to look at this Clause again. They had some fear that the wording of the Clause, as it appeared in the Bill originally, would permit the tribunal to exercise some kind of means test or needs test. I said I would look at the wording of the Clause again, and that if I was advised that there was any doubt, I would make the necessary changes. I made changes in Committee, but there was still some lingering doubts. I do not think that they were fully justified, but to avoid any kind of doubt I decided to change the form of words again, and make it abundantly clear that no means test or needs test could be applied. I hope that we are now all satisfied that the wording of the Clause, as it will be, with this Amendment, puts the matter beyond any kind of doubt.

Mr. S. Silverman: I should like to say how grateful I am to my right hon. Friend for the great care he has taken in the wording of the Amendment which he has now proposed. The Clause as originally


drafted did not merely make it possible but inevitable that the local tribunal would have to apply a means test. The Amendment which my right hon. Friend moved in Committee went far to remove that apprehension, but he did not go quite all the way. I freely acknowledge that the Amendment now before the Committee removes any possibility whatever of applying a means test or a needs test of any kind in those cases in which a recommendation is made by the local tribunal. That does not mean that we have got rid of the means test as applied to unemployment relief under this Bill. I do not want to enter upon that subject now. It is part of a much larger question. I want to express my thanks to my right hon. Friend for having made it perfectly clear that the local tribunal, in considering whether it will make recommendations or not, shall not have regard to any kind of means test or needs test.

Mr. Molson: I am obliged to the Minister for making it quite plain that the whole of this issue will be open for discussion at a later stage where we have put down an alternative Clause. We recognise this is giving effect to a Clause with which we do not entirely agree, but it is an improvement in drafting.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause,"put, and negatived

Question proposed, That those words be there inserted."

5.45 P.m.

Mr. Stephen: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment. in line 4, to leave out
The particular circumstances of the applicant, including 
I appreciate very much the way in which the Minister has met the objection with regard to the means test in this matter. I ask him to go a little bit further, because I am anxious about the effect this will have in the future in dealing with these cases. There are very serious possibilities in regard to the provision about "not genuinely seeking work."If hon. Members look at the Bill they will see that there are certain qualifications which a person has to fulfil. I ask the Minister what other qualifications he could insert with regard to an applicant for benefit after he has received his

180 day's benefit? Capability and availability for work are qualifications which the applicant has to satisfy before he gets benefit. Is anything more necessary than that in considering the circumstances of the applicant? It may he said, "But this person has been unemployed for so long that it becomes an urgent matter to consider whether he should not take training." Already the court of referees could have imposed the condition of training upon the applicant. As far as I can see, with regard to an applicant satisfying conditions, there is nothing whatever that is not already provided for under the old statutory conditions In discussing this matter, the Minister has said:
I am trying to decide exactly what form the tribunal will take. It must be a tribunal, of course, that will weed out what I think will be a very small minority of anti-social people.
I was here when the 1924 Act was passed. I am basing my appeal to the Minister upon my past experience of unemployment insurance administration. Always there was a good case put up to Members of this House. Nobody wanted people who were not genuinely seeking work to receive benefit. That seems reasonable. Also the statement was made that the court of referees would be people who knew the applicants. They would be people drawn from the same district and nominated by the trade unions. There was every protection. What happened after all that protection? As the Minister himself has said:
 Whatever may have been the intention of Parliament the thing became a complete farce in operation. I can assure the Committee that calling a man before a tribunal and asking him, "What time did you get up this morning; where did you go to look for work?"In the circumstances of Merthyr or Tonypandy, was complete nonsense, and anyone who has had experience will agree with me. The Chairman of the tribunal and the employers' representatives knew it was a silly farce, and so did everyone else."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 3rd April, 1946; c. 508.]
He says they knew it was a farce, and so did everyone else. But thousands upon thousands of people were refused benefit because of that farce.

Mr. Kirkwood: That is the tragedy.

Mr. Stephen: In the consideration of particular circumstances no Committee is going to be in a position where they,can


say that a person should not receive benefit under the conditions which applied previously with regard to "not genuinely seeking work." When we abolished "not genuinely seeking work" we put in the objective test that the exchange should have the right to give the person concerned a definite instruction to go to a certain place. If he did that, then he was genuinely seeking work. We had a fearful fight on this matter and all sorts of compromises were made; but the minority Labour Government, in which the present Minister played a very effective part, decided that this matter had to be made perfectly definite by an objective test I appeal to the Minister. I want it to be made plain to the Committee that the Minister of National Insurance has no intention of allowing any repetition of the old position. No one would be more horrified than he at the suggestion that there should be a possibility; but, in the words as they stand, the possibility is there. Speaking from my own experience, I can say that when we give a committee the power to decide, when they can ask an applicant questions as to the state of his mind and so on, there is a danger, unless it depends upon an objective test, as it does with regard to the previous 180 days' benefit. I ask the Minister to take these words out altogether and simply apply the previous statutory qualifications as the condition with regard to benefit.
I know it may be said, "But you have got to consider the particular circumstances of the applicant in relation to the industrial situation in his particular district." After this period during which he has drawn benefit, we have to consider whether, at this stage, training might not be something which is very necessary in the interests of the applicant, but that can be done without putting in the words, "shall have regard to the particular circumstances," which give to the Minister the right to bring in subjective tests. I say to the Minister: "Do not do anything that creates the possibility of giving the tribunals the right to apply a subjective test to the individual—something with regard to his state of mind." I would remind the Committee, in this connection, that, when individuals appear before a committee—and many of these people are poor people who never had very much opportunity in life—they are

just in a state of terror when somebody asks them a question. They are practically frightened; they do not know what they are saying. They are almost on trial for their lives, and all of us who have had experience of unemployment insurance administration—and the Minister knows it as well as I do—know that they are just in a dither when they appear before a court of referees and do not know what they are saying, and so out they go.
I want to make it absolutely certain that a statutory power given to the Minister is not also given to the tribunals to enable them to apply new tests in this way. There are those tests which have been proved by experience to have worked in a certain measure of fairness, and which have satisfied the unemployed, to a certain extent, in the past, but, if we are going to impose something else, it will be very unsatisfactory. The training is already there, in the present statutory qualifications which the individual must have, and, indeed, he may have to leave his own district and go to another, and that possibility is also covered in the present qualifications. As the court of referees has also got power to decide in that way with regard to his benefit, what is there that is to be done that is new in this way that cannot already be considered under the old qualifications? I would also caution the Minister, when he is considering this new form of extended benefit, to be very careful about the particular circumstances of the individual. In regard to the movement of people about the country, we have a big housing problem, and I would remind the Minister of the fearful difficulty which arises when an ordinary working class person in these circumstances has to shift from one part of the country to another. As I see it, this is only going to apply for five years, but, in those five years, there will be plenty of difficulties, without adding to them. I therefore appeal to the Minister to accept this Amendment. I know that he has no intention of imposing, through the regulations that will be made by mm, power on the tribunal to consider the particular circumstances of the individual. He is not proposing that, and I take it that he has no intention of giving to the tribunal the power to say, "We do not like the look of this fellow, and do not think he has really been as anxious for work as he


ought to have been; we will not recommend benefit at this stage."
I would also remind the Minister that, while one Government may pass a Statute, another Government may have the administration of it afterwards, and that another Minister might give a different interpretation to it. Consequently, I have felt very strongly that the Minister should take a different way of dealing with this matter than by reference to the particular circumstances of the individual. The Government have felt it necessary to introduce extended benefit under this Clause, but I cannot, for the life of me, see why they should have hedged it around in this way. Let their administration, under present conditions, be carried on as it has been carried on fairly with regard to the workers, and let the State take the responsibility for extended benefit during these periods. That, as I understand it, has always been the point of view of the working class movement, and I am moving this Amendment in order to make the plea to the Minister that he should reconsider this whole question, and, in introducing his extended benefit, face the situation by using the powers that have ahead), been given and which have proved, in the administration of them, to have been comparatively fair to the unemployed.

Mr. Blyton: I hope the Government will not accept this Amendment. This question was debated at full length in the Standing Committee. when the Minister gave a temporary assurance that this proposal did not mean the resurrection of the old Clause. If we, on this side of the Committee, had though- that it meant that, none of us would ever have supported the Minister in the Committee, and I believe that the Minister himself, who had to deal with this particular issue during his time as a miners' official, would not be prepared to see that old Clause resurrected. But it is necessary that words of this character should be embodied in this Clause. We have in the unemployment market today men who are sick persons, who have been able to get a certificate indicating fitness to do light work, and, because it has meant the difference between getting 16s. a week sick pay, as against 40s. a week unemployment benefit, we find these men signing the unemployment

book, although not fit for work in the ordinary way.
If these men are to be fitted into employment under this new Act, and I hope u will try to bring these broken men back into industry, we have to take care that the tribunals, which will be the custodians of the man's safety, will be able to say that the job which is offered by the employment officer is one which they consider the man to be incapable of doing, because of his state of health. There is also the question of the light work compensation men whom the industry have discarded at, may be, a compensation of 225. a week. They are not able to take their place in the labour market. During the war I sat on committees which dealt with hundreds of such men and even when labour was badly needed in this country we could not fit them into any occupation because they were so incapacitated. Therefore, when the men apply for extended benefit and are offered jobs, the tribunals are entitled to take into consideration their particular circumstances and to consider whether the jobs offered are suitable in the light of their disabilities.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Stephen: Under the present statutory conditions, the committees can do that at the present time.

Mr. Blyton: The court of referees at the present time can only deal with what is known as "suitable employment." What we are dealing with now is an entirely different matter. We are dealing with men applying for extended benefit and whether they can be fitted into industry or not. The Clause is a splendid safeguard for the man himself when the tribunal has dealt with him because it deals with his physical condition. In addition, there are the soldiers who have come out of this war with disability pensions. They have to be fitted into industry and, if the particular circumstances are taken into consideration, I consider that they are protected far more by the tribunal than they have been in the past by the court of referees who have to decide on the basis of whether it be suitable employment or not for a particular man. It is no use blinking the fact that there are two conditions which will have to be fulfilled in the operation of extended benefit. First, the man will have to prove that he is capable and available for work and,


secondly, there will have to be a willingness to work, Knowing what this particular Clause means, I think it is to the advantage of the man himself, when applying for extended benefit, that these particular words should be left in the Clause.

Mr. Elector Hughes: I wish to support the argument of the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton), and I hope that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) will not be accepted. The hon. Member directed the whole of his argument to paragraph (b) of the Minister's proposed Amendment. He regarded it in the light of a means test.

Mr. Stephen: I did not suggest that a means test would be applied.

Mr. Hughes: It seemed to me that he overlooked the words in paragraph (a):
 shall not proceed on any consideration of the financial resources of the applicant or persons connected with him…
I venture to think that had he had regard to those words he would not have propounded the argument which, in fact, he did propound.

Mr. Cove: I have been in this House for about 20 years and have listened to Debate after Debate on unemployment issues and the conditions which govern unemployment benefit. One or two of the speeches made by hon. Members on this side of the Committee remind me of those Debates. I say, quite frankly, that I do not share the blasting scepticism of the ordinary workers which seems to have come from the benches behind me. I have realised, as my hon. Friends realise, the utter futility of trying to lay down any strict conditions and regulations about this matter. The real issue, as a matter of fact, does not lie with the Amendment of my hon. Friends opposite; the real issue is whether we are to have Clause 12 or not, and whether or not an unemployed man is to be continued in benefit. Therefore, I do not think we ought to waste time in discussing the niceties that arise out of this Amendment. I would ask the movers of this Amendment to withdraw it. It will not effect what we want to effect, and it will still leave difficulties. I hope that its withdrawal will facilitate the passage of the Bill so that we may get on quickly

with what is the real issue--whether Clause 12 shall stand intact as it is. Therefore, I make my appeal to my hon. Friends opposite to withdraw the Amendment in order to allow us to get on with the major issue.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I do not propose at this stage to enter at great length into a discussion on Clause 12 and its operation. I do not wish to repeat the same thing all over again. The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen)—whose sincerity in making his speech I fully acknowledge—has put forward a number of suggestions of what I propose to do. I made it abundantly clear on the Committee stage that I had no intention of doing those things. I hope he will withdraw the Amendment and will appreciate that this Clause is a regulating Clause and that the tribunal will have the regulation before them. Having regard to what I said in Committee I hope the hon. Member for Camlachie is now satisfied that his fears are completely unwarranted and that I have cleared up the point.

Mr. McGovern: I cannot claim that the speech of the Minister has satisfied the demand of the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) and myself on this point, and I disagree entirely with the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) who suggested that the Amendment should be withdrawn, because its purpose could be defeated and this regulation would be there to be applied in the circumstances. Very often people in this House have shirked one issue and have afterwards said, "We should have divided; we should have opposed this issue. Now we have lost both."I think it is better, therefore, to treat both of them with proper respect. I should be amazed if anybody in this Committee was not prepared to pay tribute to the Minister and Under-Secretary for their desire to do the right thing. But during my 16 years in this House, I have heard Ministers speaking at the Box; I once heard a former Colonial Secretary telling of the great good there would be under regulations dealing with unemployment. When he was warned of what might happen under those regulations, he said, with all the assurance possible, that instead of having money taken away from them, people would receive£4,500,000 in benefit. Then the storm broke loose. The Act had to be altered and the regulations


destroyed and rearranged which made fools of the Members of this House—who are supposed to be the custodians of justice—who accepted assurances from Ministers and did not insist on the regulations to be applied being considered by this House.
Therefore, although I believe the Minister means well, I recall that I have heard it said, time and time again, in hardship courts and before umpires, "We are not interested in what the Minister said in the House; we are interested in what is in the Act." It is true that an umpire decides on the point at issue and that it is possible to go to appeal, but the important thing is what appears in the Act, and if something cannot be explained properly then there must be something wrong with it. Why cannot the circumstances of the applicants be explained in simple words? If the intention of the Bill is to give power to legal men to interpret in their own way and say, "Our interpretation is that we have the right to consider all the circumstances, and, in our estimation, the circumstances are that you are not seeking work and, therefore, we disqualify you entirely," and if the Bill places powers in the hands of courts of referees, we in this Committee are entitled to see that in the Act of Parliament the fullest protection is given to the individual, if we are what we claim to be—the custodians of even the lowest person in the country.
On numerous occasions I have heard it said, "The Minister would not be so mean as to do this."It does not depend on the Minister's desire, although I would add that I would place more reliance on the desire of the present Minister than of some of the Tories if they had the same position. But, realising the desire of the Minister to give the utmost protection to the individual, let us be sure that the utmost protection is given and that by no misuse of words in a court of referees shall the Act be interpreted to the disadvantage of the individual.
The hon. Member for Camlachie referred to these people who go before the courts. I have attended hardship committees and courts of referees, and afterwards I have said to some of the applicants, "Why did you give the answer you gave? You completely gave away your case." Very often, they have said

something that is not true and they would say to me, "I do not remember saying that."They were in such a state of nervous excitement that they did not know what they were saying. I want this Bill to provide the utmost protection for the individual so that he obtains benefit if he is entitled to it. It must be proved that a person does not desire work. A man should be offered a job; if he is not given a job he has got to have unemployment benefit—[Interruption.] The hon. and learned Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hector Hughes) did not even know what was being discussed. I hope he will pardon me, as a layman, saying that, but it would have been far better if he had not intervened at all instead of voicing approval of something which he did not understand. If he had more experience of the working of these Acts—

Mr. Hector Hughes: I suggest that it is obvious that the hon. Member did not understand my argument.

Mr. McGovern: I admit that, and I would be amazed if anybody else understood it I ask new Members not to approve things which they do not understand, and to be very careful in supporting an Amendment merely because it comes from a Member of their own party or in opposing an Amendment because it conies from a minority voice, because very often a minority voice has reason behind it. Knowing the intentions of the Government and believing in the intentions of the Minister, I ask him to take out these obnoxious words, which are not only undesirable but which can be misinterpreted, because it is not wise to insert words which are capable of misinterpretation.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. S. Silverman: I do not wish to detain the Committee, but I want to explain why I cannot support this Amendment. I am not speaking as a new Member, although I am not as old a Member as the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) so far as this problem is concerned. I agree with the approach to this question of the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), but I would re-echo the appeal to the hon. Member to withdraw this Amendment because even if it were


accepted he would achieve nothing. My right hon. Friend can still make regulations, and so could any other Minister who succeeded him. The evil in this matter is not these half dozen words. The evil is that in the very first all-inclusive scheme of social insurance designed to remove freedom from want, the Government have thought fit to introduce discriminations between one kind of genuine unemployed person and another kind of genuine unemployed person. The way to tackle that problem is to tackle the whole of Clause 62 and, ultimately, to tackle Clause 12, because all these matters arise out of the original decision, in conflict with Beveridge and in conflict with the policy of this party for a quarter of a century, to impose a time limit in regard to unemployment benefit and social insurance. Every one of the anomalies, evils, injustices and inequalities of which the hon. Gentleman so eloquently reminded us will either happen under the regulations or they will not. They can still happen or not happen, whether these words are included or not.
The reason why I think the words are better in, subject to what I have said, is that everybody recognises that after a long period of unemployment the community may have the right to call upon the unemployed person to fulfil certain conditions. We are entitled, therefore, to look into the particular circumstances of the applicant after a period of time, provided we do not destroy the statutory right to benefit. That is the crucial point. I ask the hon. Gentle. man to leave out these minor points and let us get on to the main issue as quickly as we can.

Mr. Stephen: I am sorry I find n necessary to detain the Committee. However, I would like to say that I think the hon. Gentleman opposite is not quite right in expressing the point of view that ii does not matter if these words are not taken out. If the words are taken out it will limit the power of the Minister in making his regulations. His power to make regulations will have no reference to the particular individual, but will have reference only to the industrial conditions in the district. The hon. Gentleman opposite says that the crux of the matter is Clause 12. Yes, but if the Committee passes Clause 12 we then come on Clause 62. Is not it necessary to make Clause 62, as little obnoxious as possible?

Mr. Silverman: Of course it is. When we discuss Clause 62 as a whole many hon. Members will have a good deal to say. All I am pointing out is that even if the hon. Gentleman has his way and gets this Amendment accepted under Clause 62 (2, b) the Minister will still have power to make general directions, and the tribunal would still have to have regard to those general directions. Therefore, the present Amendment, even if it succeeded, would achieve nothing whatever.

Mr. Stephen: I still do not agree with the hon. Gentleman when he refers me to Clause 62 (2, b) in relation to general directions issued for the purpose of that Clause. Paragraph (b) will be governed, to some extent, by paragraph (a). Paragraph (a) lays down that the consideration has to be the industrial conditions, and that will be the instruction to the Minister for issuing his directions under paragraph (b). It is really a matter of interpretation. I think my interpretation would be considered sound. What the hon. Gentleman the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) said when dealing with certain cases was very significant, namely, that this tribunal will have to determine whether a person is willing to work.

Mr. Blyton: What I said was that there would be two conditions: capable of and available for work, and willingness to work.

Mr. Stephen: The tribunal has to determine the willingness to work. How is the tribunal to determine that? I ask the hon. Member: Has he thought of that? He gave no indication as to how the tribunal would determine the willingness to work. That is one of the points of this Amendment. What I claim here is that this is exactly the same formula that was employed away back in 1923, and which came again in a somewhat different form in 1924. On that occasion honest, decent people in the House of Commons did the same as the hon. Member has done on this occasion. He has said that there will be local people on the tribunal who will know the man and be able to decide his willingness to work. We have had the tragedy of all these years, when hundreds of thousands of people were denied benefit. What I am pleading here is that


this Committee should not allow that to happen again. If we cannot get what we ought to have, namely, benefit going on and the Government taking power to have special consideration given in certain districts as to how best to help the people, but no restriction on the men's right to benefit, then I say let us make what will probably be the operative

Clause as little obnoxious as possible, and do not let us give any opening whereby there could be imposed a restriction such as "not genuinely seeking work."

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 271; Noes, 14.

Division No. 178.
AYES.
6.25 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Mack, J. D.


Adams, W, T. (Hammersmith, South)
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Aitken, Hon. Max
Fairhurst, F.
McKinlay, A- S.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Farthing, W. J.
Maclean, N. (Govan)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
McLeavy, F.


Awbery, S. S.
Follick, M.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Ayrton Could, Miss B.
Forman, J. C.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Bacon, Miss A.
Foster, W. (Wigan)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Baird, Capt. J.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Mann, Mrs. J.


Balfour, A.
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)


Barstow, P. G.
Gaitskell, H. T. N.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Barton, C.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Marshall. S. H. Sutton)


Battley, J. R.
Gibbins, J.
Mayhey, C.P.


Bechervaise, A. E
Gibson, C. W.
Medland, H. M.


Bennett, Sir P.
Gilzean, A.
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Berry, H.
Glanville, J. E. (Conselt)
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.


Bing, Capt. G. H. C
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Mitchison, Maj. G. R.


Binns, J.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Monslow, W.


Blenkinsop, Capt. A
Granfell, D. R.
Montague, F.


Blyton, W. R.
Grey, C. F.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.


Boardman, H.
Grierson, E.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Morley, R.


Bower, N.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p't, Exch'ge)
Guy, W. H.
Mort, D. L.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Haire, Fit. Lieut. J. (Wycombe)
Moyle, A.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hate, Leslie
Nally, W.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Halt, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Nayler, T. E.


Brown, T. J. (Inee)
Hamilton, Lieut-Col. R.
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford N)


Burden, T. W.
Hardy, E A.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Burke, W. A.
Harrison, J
Nield B. (Chester)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V
Noel-Buxton. Lady


Chamberlain, R. A.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
O'Brien, T.


Champion, A. J.
Hollis, M. C
Oldfield, W.H.


Clitherow, Dr. R
Holman, P.
Oliver, G.H.


Cluse, W. S.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Orbach, M.


Cobb, F. A.
House, G
Paget, R.T.


Cocks, F, S.
Hubbard, T.
Paget, R. T.


Coldrick, W.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Collick, P.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Parker, J.


Colman, Miss. G. M.
Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lverh'pion, W.)
Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.


Cook, T. F.
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Pearson, A.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Peart, Capt. T F.


Corvedale, Viscount
Irving, W. J.
Perrins, W.


Crawley, Flt.-Lieul. A.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.


Daggar. G.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Popplewell, E


Daines, P.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Porter, E (Warrington)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Keenan, W.
Price, M. Philips


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Kenyon, G.
Proctor, W. T.


Deer, G.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Pryde, D. J.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Kinley, J.
Pursey, Cmdr. H


De la Bere, R.
Kirby, B. V.
Ranger, J.


Delargy, Captain H. J.
Lang, G.
Reeves, J.


Diamond, J.
Langford-Holt, J.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Dobbie, W.
Lavers, S.
Richards, R.


Dodds, N. N.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Donovan, T.
Lee, Miss J. (Canneck)
Roberts, Geronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Douglas, F. C. R.
Leslie, J. R.
Roberts, Mai. P. G. (Ecclesall)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lowis, T. (Southampton)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Dumpleton, C- W.
Lindgren, G. S.
Ropner, Col. L.


Durbin, E. F. M.
Lipson, D. L.
Royle, C.


Dye, S.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Sargood, R.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Logan, D. G.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Edelman, M.
Lyne, A. W.
Scollan, T.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
McAllister, G.
Scott-Elliet, W


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Segal, Dr. S.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
McEntee, V. La T.
Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
McGhee, H. G.
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.




Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Symonds, Maj. A. L,
Weitzman, D.


Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Shurmer, P.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Teeling, William
Whiteley, Rt Hon. W


Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Thomas, I O. (Wrekin)
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Simmons, C. J.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Wilkins, W. A.


Skeffington, A. M.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Skinnard, F. W.
Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Thurtle, E.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S)
Tiffany, S.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Timmons, J.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingreve)


Smith, T. (Normanton)
Titterington, M. F.
Williams, W. R (Heston)


Snow, Capt. J. W.
Tolley, L.
Willis, E.


Solley, L. J.
Turton, R. H.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Sorensen, R. W.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Wise, Major F. J


Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Usborne, Henry
Yates, V, F


Sparks, J. A.
Vernon, Maj. W. F,
York, C.


Stamford, W.
Viant, S. P.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Steele, T.
Walkden., E.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E)
Walker, G. H.



Stross, Dr. B.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Sutcliffe, H.
Warbey, W. N.
M, Joseph Henderson and


Swingler, S
Watson, W. M.
Mr. Collindridge




NOES.


Attewell, H. C.
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Ayles, W. H.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Wadsworlh, G.


Beechman, N. A.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)



Bowen, R.
Kirkwood, D.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Mr. Stephen and


Byers, Lt.-Col. F.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Mr. McGovern

Proposed words there inserted.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in Clause 62—

Mr. R. A. Butler: On a point of Order. I understood, Major Milner, that the Question that Clause 62 stand part of the Bill had been put.

The Chairman: I was possibly in error in putting the Question—I had assumed that all the Amendments had been dealt with and the Clause debated.

Mr. S. Silverman: I think we were all taken a little by surprise, and I do not think any of us would have any objection to the Minister moving the Amendment now on the understanding that it does reopen the whole Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Chairman: As the error was mine I hope the Committee will agree to reopen that Question. I had only just come into the Chair and I assumed that the Clause had already been debated

Mr. R. A. Butler: It is, of course, a matter for you to decide, Major Milner, but I think it is somewhat unsatisfactory. It was originally agreed, I understood, that the main discussion should take place on the new Clause which is to be moved

from this side of the Committee. We have not interrupted Government business, but have attempted to facilitate it, and a great deal of time has been taken by supporters and critics of the Government, who are covered under one general umbrella, who have occupied the time of the Committee on very important matters. If we are to have another Debate on the Question that Clause 62. stand part, as well as on our new Clause, we shall have a treble discussion on the same subject, and I cannot guarantee that we on this side of the Committee can then restrain ourselves from indulging in double debates. In that case we shall have two Debates on this Clause, which will be unsatisfactory and a great waste of time, and I can give no guarantee whatever that the Committee stage of the Bill, and the Report stage as well, will be finished in two days. We must concentrate our discussions or we on this side of the Committee really cannot play

The Chairman: If desired we may have a general discussion on the Question that Clause 62 stand part—I hope a short one—but we must quite clearly leave the matter raised by the right hon. Gentleman open until the occasion arises.

Mr. S. Silverman: It is obvious that the issues raised by Clause 62, assuming that Clause 12 remains part of the Bill, are very much like those raised by the new Clause, as the right hon. Gentleman has pointed


out. Would it not be possible to discuss both Clauses together, the question that Clause 62 stand part, and the new Clause?

The Chairman: I am afraid we cannot do that—the new Clause must be discussed separately.

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 52, line 34, after "section," To insert:
 and any increase attributable to this Section in the expenses borne by the National Insurance Fund by virtue of Subsection (2) of Section thirty-eight of this Act.
I shall not detain the Committee more than a moment or two in regard to this Amendment. We have, in fact, already decided that the cost of the continued benefit shall be borne by the Treasury. I think, therefore, the Committee will equally agree that the cost of the administration of that continued benefit should also be borne by the Treasury. This Amendment is to give effect to that, so that both the benefit, and the cost of the administration of that benefit, shall be borne by the Treasury.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 52, line 36, at the end, to insert:
 and for the purposes of this Subsection the amount of the said sums and any such increase shall be estimated in such manner as the Minister with the concurrence of the Treasury may determine.
This Amendment is almost consequential, except in so far as it does admit that the actual costs of the administration, to which I referred in moving the previous Amendment, may not be able to be, definitely and accurately ascertained. It therefore makes it possible for the Minister and the Treasury to agree upon an appropriation of cost.

Mr. C. Williams: I wish to say just one thing on this matter. Here we are definitely adding to expenditure. I in no way dispute the expenditure at the present time, but I do not think it is a good thing that we should add to the costs in the casual way in which this is being done. It is a bad principle, and for that reason I raise my voice in protest. I do not think it is good administration.

Amendment agreed to

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. S. Silverman: I do not know that I quite appreciate the significance of what was said a moment ago by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler). I do remember, however, that in the Committee the Party opposite moved to delete Clause 62, and voted against the Clause standing part of the Bill. I could not support them in that because it was quite clear, and it remains clear, that if Clause 62 goes out and Clause 12 stops in, then the Bill will make no provision at all for any unemployment benefit after the 180 days provided in Clause 12. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden then said, "But please do not suppose that if Clause 62 goes out there will be a void in the Bill, because we will be able on the Report stage to provide or propose an alternative." At that time the Bill had been before Parliament some six months. The Beveridge Report had been before Parliament and the country for several years. The Party opposite had been the Government of this country and considering their policy for a long time. It seemed to me then, arid it seems to me now, that if they had had an alternative to Clause 62 it ought to have been on the Order Paper during the Committee stage at an early date. I cannot anticipate, but I see that they have a long new Clause, a long, complicated piece of national and local machinery, to propose.

6.45 p.m.

The Chairman: I am bound to say that I do not see any relevance in the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill "—we cannot of course discuss a new Clause.

Mr. Silverman: I submit with very great respect, Major Milner, that if I had sought to discuss the new Clause your rebuke would have been deserved, but I did not seek to discuss the new Clause, and I do not. But what I wanted to indicate was, that unless the new Clause is intended as an alternative, no alternative to Clause 62 has been placed on the Order Paper; and I am interested to know what the right hon. Gentleman and those who support him now have to say about Clause 62 standing part. That is all

The Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman but the Question is


whether this Clause, as amended, should stand part of the Bill. We cannot discuss the new Clause yet. It is Clause 62 to which the hon. Gentleman must address his remarks.

Mr. R. A. Butler: If it would facilitate discussion I can tell the hon. Member for Nelson and Calne (Mr. Silverman) what we think of Clause 62. It is a thorough bad and unworkmanlike Clause. We have a statesmanlike Clause on the Order Paper, and we hope to move it, and the sooner we decide the issue on Clause 62, and come to some constructive discussion, the better.

Mr. Silverman: Debate on whether the new Clause is a statesmanlike alternative or not, you, Major Milner, have ruled out of Order, so that I cannot discuss it. What I am interested in now—and, surely, this must 13,. in Order—is whether they want Clause 62 in or out. I agree that Clause 62 is a thoroughly bad Clause. I do not think the Committee realise yet what the scheme of unemployment relief in this Bill really is.
The effect of Clause 62 is to distinguish, for the purposes of this Bill, four different kinds of genuine unemployment, to be dealt with in four quite different ways. We have, first, the man who is entitled to his statutory benefit. That is one kind. There is no comment to be made about that at this stage. Then we have a class of man who has exhausted his statutory benefit, but in whose favour a local tribunal has made a recommendation to the Minister. How that recommendation is to be made, on what principles it is to be made and on what kind of test, and" what kind of yardstick is to be used, when we discriminate between one unemployed man and another, has not yet been disclosed. But it has been disclosed that some discrimination, some kind of test, is to be made, and that two classes are to be created. The first of them will have in their favour a recommendation from a local tribunal. That recommendation is not binding on the Minister. He may, if such a recommendation be made, pay the full unemployment benefit. I concede, at once, that he cannot pay anything less. I concede that, after the Amendments that have been made, he cannot apply a means test in that case, but subject to that he need not accept the recommendation a all. The payment of unemployment bene

fit to a man whose statutory right has been exhausted, in the recommendation, under Clause 62, of a local tribunal, is still discretionary. That is the second class. Then there is the third class, also created by Clause 62. That is the class of men who are unemployed, who have been unemployed for more than 180 days and who are genuinely unemployed, but in whose case, again for reasons of which we have had no indication so far from the Government, the local tribunals have made no recommendations at all.
I wonder what hon. Members think will be the feeling among unemployed men. For their first 180 days they all get the same, on the same conditions. After that you divide the sheep from the goats, but not according to means, or according to genuineness. It has nothing to do with genuineness, because that has been taken care of at the first stage. The fact that A. man has had his benefit for 180 days is conclusive proof of his genuineness. Therefore, in dividing the unemployed into those who are to continue to get the statutory benefit, and those who are not, you are discriminating without a means test, and without any reference to genuineness. How do you discriminate? There may be two men living in the same street. One will get his unemployment benefit, although his statutory right is exhausted. But what is to become of the other? What will he get? He has been unemployed for more than six months and is just as genuine, but how does he come into the picture? I asked this question at another stage, and I was told," Oh, the Assistance Board," but the Assistance Board means a means test—there is no question about that—and that is why I said a short while ago, "do not imagine this gets rid of the means test from unemployment insurance."
Clause 62 divides the unemployed into two classes after 180 days—those who will get the same amount of statutory benefit without a means test, and those who will be referred to the assistance board with a means test. I want to know how we are going to justify this to ourselves, to our consciences and to the country after the political and social campaign we have conducted on this matter for 25 years. There are many Members whose political reputations have been based on their contributions to this fight over the many years. The Minister is one of them. There is the Minister of Health,


and there is the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. I am glad to see them all in the Government. I think they strengthen the Government, making it an even better Government than it would be without them. But there are moments when I regret their being in the Government, and I regret it at this moment. I would much sooner hear the Minister of Health or the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland make the case I am trying to make at this moment, than that I should try to do it myself. I do my best, but I cannot do it as well as they could do it; they have done it so often in this House, and have so much more experience in putting this case. I say to hon. Members behind me that they too have a responsibility. I think that the time will come when Members of this party will be sorry about this. They will wish they had not been quite so—I do not want to say complacent, but they will wish they had not followed the smaller loyalty instead of the wider loyalty. There is no justification for drawing this distinction. Sir William Beveridge did not draw it. He imposed no limit on unemployment benefit or on sickness benefit. To be quite fair, the Coalition Government, which the Conservative Party dominated, when they published their White Paper on social insurance policy, were at least consistent and logical, because they imposed a time limit on unemployment and sickness benefit. It has been left to a Labour Government to say, "You can be sick as long as you like, but God help you if you are unemployed for longer than six months."
Those are the three classes of unemployed, but there is a fourth class—the man for whom you cannot find work at all, because he is a misfit. There is no unemployment benefit for him after 180 days, no Assistance Board because he is back on the poor law—the worst kind of means test. I accept what is in the Government's mind. If a man has been unemployed, no matter how genuinely, after a certain time you have to pay particular regard to the circumstances of his particular case. You are entitled to call upon him to submit himself to training in some other occupation, and you may be entitled to call upon him to take work in some other locality. We are entitled to impose conditions if a long period of unemployment is established, and

the man is unlikely to be employed in his own district or in his own avocation. We are entitled to impose these conditions, provided the statutory right of insurance continues, and provided that his standard of living is maintained. To take away his statutory right and leave his payments to the discretion of the Minister on the recommendation of a tribunal whose workings we know nothing about, leaving it open to introduce all these anomalies, which may be changed some dav by some regulation, is unjustifiable.
I cannot oppose Clause 62. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite are not likely to be unemployed in that sense, and will not be subject, therefore, to these conditions. They may treat it lightheartedly, but I do not. You may be compelled to accept a bad Clause, because a bad Clause is better than no Clause. I cannot vote against Clause 62, because while Clause 12 remains in the Bill, statutory benefit will end after 180 days, and Clause 62 does make some provision for some persons to continue their unemployed benefit beyond that, without a means test. I cannot, therefore, throw that away.
Hon. Members on the other side may throw it away lightheartedly, if they like, but I cannot. That does not make Clause 62 a good Clause. I say that it is a bad Clause, but that the effect created by taking it away would be a worse thing for the unemployed in this country. Therefore, I am not prepared to vote against it. I shall have an opportunity later of dividing on the question of whether there should be a time limit at all, and I hope that I may have the support of my hon. Friends, when we come to that.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I apologise for having been out of the Committee while the first part of this discussion was taking place, but I took the opportunity of a Division to have some refreshment. We had a discussion on this, as well as on other major matters arising under this Bill, on Second Reading, and we had a discussion in Committee on both Clause 12 and Clause 62, which lasted several days. I believe that everyone who served on that Committee, on all sides, will agree that the fullest opportunity was given for a full and frank discussion on this problem. I explained, in the


Second Reading Debate, why the Government arrived at the decision that there should be two provisions in the Bill covering unemployment benefit, first, the provision for 180 days, with certain provisions, which we are carrying from the old scheme into the new, for added days' benefit beyond the 180 days; and, second, the provision which is incorporated in Clause 62.
It was within the right of the Government—it could have been done and my hon. Friend has been complaining because it has not been done—to have made unemployment benefit continuous and unlimited, under Clause 12, and to have the whole cost borne in the way unemployment is borne by the provisions of Clause 12. Unemployment under Clause 12 is borne by the Fund and is a charge upon the Fund, and that could be done now, The cost, of course, would be higher than the cost of the existing charge on unemployment under this Insurance Bill. Perhaps I may be allowed to mention what the additional contributions would be, if the cost of all unemployment, on the actuarial basis upon which the whole of this scheme has been constructed for unemployment purposes, were to be put on the Fund. It would add 3½d. to the contributions of the worker, 3½d. to the contributions of the employer, and 3½d to the contributions of the State. The Government, with the experience of the Insurance Fund in the inter-war years, came to the conclusion that the cost of what we are describing, and what we are defining in the Bill, as long term unemployment could not be borne by the Unemployment Fund, and should be borne by the State. Behind that decision is the experience of the interwar years.
May I remind the Committee of one very important change which is made? From 1922 until the beginning of the war, the Unemployment Insurance Fund of this country was continuously in debt. The interwar experience proved this beyond doubt. If, at any time, over any prolonged period, we had had anything like mass unemployment, that could not have been met by the Insurance Fund, without making it completely bankrupt. That was the position. When the war began, there was a very heavy debt on that Fund. During the six years of war—a tragic commentary—the Unemployment Fund

was able to add considerably to its funds, and not only repay the debt, but add a surplus, until now there is a surplus of something like£350 million, which will he handed over eventually to this Fund. During the inter-war period, the Unemployment Insurance Fund, because of the experience to which I have referred, became bankrupt. But there are other funds which are also of importance. The funds for sickness benefit, widows' pensions and old age pensions survived the whole of that period and remained solvent. During that period, and up to now, they have been separate funds. Under this Bill, and by the very structure of the Bill, the whole of those funds become one single fund. It will, therefore, be appreciated that if, by any mischance, we, at any time, experience what happened during the inter-war period, and mass unemployment came back, and was a complete charge on the Fund, the Fund could be destroyed.
Let the Committee be under no illusion about what would happen if it were destroyed. It would destroy the Fund in which all the benefits are brought under this Bill. The Government decided that the cost of unemployment benefit up to a period of 180 days continuous unemployment,plus the added days which are related to the insured worker's own contribution, shall be borne by the Fund, and, over and above that, the charge should rest upon the Exchequer. We, therefore, had to make provision for having unemployment benefit at the expense of the Exchequer beyond 180 days. That is done under Clause 62. It was agreed in Committee, and I think that I have now made it perfectly clear, that when Clause 62 comes to be operated, neither the Minister nor the tribunal nor anyone else is entitled to work any kind of means test or need test.

Mr. S. Silverman: It is true that, 'n determining those who are to benefit under Clause 62, the means test has gone, absolutely, beyond any doubt of any kind. But those in whose favour the local tribunal make no recommendation will be subject to a means test under the old Unemployment Act, operated by the Assistance Board.

Mr. Griffiths: First there is the unemployed benefit under Clause 12, and extended unemployed benefit under Clause 62. If an unemployed person


fails to get unemployment benefit under either of those provisions, then it is true that what remains for him is the Assistance Board. But if he gets unemployment benefit under one or the other, there is no means test or need test. That, I believe, is accepted all round. When an insured person is nearing the exhaustion of his statutory benefit, he will have a right under this Bill, which he does not possess now. Now, when his statutory benefit ends, he has no right to ask anyone for unemployment benefit. It ceases altogether. Under this Bill, he will have the right, when his 180 days' unemployment benefit becomes exhausted, to apply for extended benefit. When a person has exhausted his statutory benefit, he has been unemployed for quite a long time. He has been continuously unemployed for seven months at the minimum, and he may have been unemployed for an even longer period, and when that stage is reached, I believe, quite honestly, that it within the interests of the insured person and the community that special steps shall be taken to examine the whole of the position of a person who has been unemployed for that period.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) made some reference to myself and the experience I have had. Looking back over w years, I can say that I fought continuously against the means test and the harsh treatment of the unemployed. If I have any regrets at all it was that so much of my time and effort—and when I use the word "my" I mean my colleagues from South Wales and myself—was spent in fighting successive Governments to try to get decent benefit and decent treatment. Perhaps it is because of that, that so much less of our time was directed to the real cure for unemployment, and that is the provision of work. If a person has been unemployed so long as to reach the stage at which unemployment benefit is lost, he then applies to a tribunal. I have explained what the provisions are in regard to the tribunal. This tribunal has to examine the case under regulations which I shall make in conformity with Clause 62.
Let me examine that. I think there are three factors which probably are responsible, when we take them collectively, for long-term unemployment. There are personal reasons in some cases why persons are unemployed so long. There are cases where long-term unem-

ployment is the responsibility of the person himself, though such cases may not be many. In Committee I said that I believed that there were a number of antisocial people whose unemployment is a result of their own failure to make any effort though they are very small in number. I am sure my hon. Friends will agree that it is our duty to protect the Fund against them. Secondly, long-term unemployment of this kind often comes from what the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne called a misfit. If I understood him correctly, he seemed to indicate that the misfit, who forms one of the important problems of long-term unemployment, had no right to come in under this Clause at all.

Mr. Silverman: I did not say that.

Mr. Griffiths: I am sorry if I misinterpreted the hon. Member, but there is the problem of the misfit—of the boy or girl who spends his or her adolescence in all kinds of "dead-end" jobs, and then, becoming unemployed, claims benefit which he or she exhausts by continuing to be unemployed. I believe that it is in the interests of those persons to come to this tribunal at this stage, because it is certainly my intention to see that the tribunal becomes a place through which and by which persons of that kind can be guided to work and a new life of usefulness and independence. Thirdly, I think the major problem, with which I have had much experience, is that of long-term unemployment due to the fact that industrial changes have rendered large numbers of people unemployed. That is the biggest part of the problem. Here is an issue where men and women are unemployed, because the industry in which they were formerly employed has now no room for them. We have an example of that in the coalmining industry and in other industries, where the demand for labour is declining and where men are being put out of work. Their skill has been developed over the years in that industry, and now there is no place for them there. This is a problem both personal and communal and we have to help them. Not only must we find work for a man so displaced, but work that will put him in a position comparable with the position he occupied in the industry in which he was previously employed. This is a problem of training and teaching him new skill.
I heard the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne refer to Sir William Beveridge and his report. It is very often said that Sir William Beveridge in his report recommended that unemployment benefit should be continuously on the Fund. It is true he did, but he only recommended that it be paid on the existing Fund for a limited period. Beyond that limited period conditions were to be attached. He recommended what the conditions should be. I gave serious consideration to them, and with some experience of this problem I rejected the idea of attaching Sir William Beveridge's conditions for the payment of an unlimited or extended benefit. He proposed that the existing conditions which should apply—

7.15 p.m.

The Chairman: If the right hon. Gentleman will permit me, I would point out that he cannot go over the whole of these matters on the Beveridge plan in that way. The heading of the Clause states:
Temporary provision as to unemployment benefit
and the discussion must be limited to that.

Mr. Griffiths: I do not want to disobey your Ruling, Major Milner, but I did suggest earlier that I might cut my own speeches very short, and if it was for the convenience of the Committee deal with the whole problem on the Amendment. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne referred to Sir William Beveridge.

Mr. Silverman: No. I made a reference to the report, but I avoided it directly because I had had it indicated to me that the question was whether there was a time limit on unemployment benefit or not. I was discussing it, assuming that there was a time limit, and that there was discrimination in regard to benefit.

Mr. Griffiths: I am entirely within your Ruling, Major Milner. The hon. Member in his speech, part of which I heard, was discussing Clauses 12 and 62 and I certainly heard him make a reference to Sir William Beveridge. That is why I referred to it. All I want to say in regard to the matter is this that when it is said we are not accepting the Beveridge Report and the Beveridge proposition of unlimited unemployment benefit, that is not in accordance with the proposals.

Mr. Silverman: I did not say that.

Mr. Griffiths: We want to have progress on this Bill and we want to give it due consideration. All I want to say, therefore, is that in our view, Clause 62 can be operated without any of the dangers which hon. Members who have spoken apprehend about this matter, and there may be another opportunity for explaining the Clause.

Mr. R. A. Butler: If there had been a concerted plot between the Government and their supporters to talk out their own Bill, it could not have been more successfully done than has been the case this afternoon. If I may say so without disrespect to the Minister, I have heard the arguments which he has just delivered to the Committee at great length so often before, that I was not able to follow him with that courtesy and attention which I try to give him in his more constructive moments. It is not the desire of the Opposition to block the passage of this Bill. We have hardly taken any part in the discussions on this Clause. If I may say so, we have not joined in the family quarrels on the other side of the Committee, and, therefore, at this stage I confine myself to putting forward two or three reasons why we should vote against the proposal that the Clause stand part of the Bill.
Our first reason is one of finance. We believe that the operation of Clause 62 would lead to a loose system of administration, that it would lead to something like the sort of abuse which used to exist under the old system of uncovenanted and extended transitional benefit. The early part of the Minister's discourse was devoted to pointing out how very expensive the previous administration of unemployment insurance extended benefit had been to the Fund. But he did not draw attention to the fact that the administration of extended unemployment benefit, through the loose and inadequate machinery of this Clause, is bound to lead to similar laxity in administration, and a similar gross expenditure of public money. Further, he did not mention that this expenditure of money is to fall on the Exchequer, and that it will be the taxpayer who will have to pay. What was the story told by the Holman Gregory report of the previous method of paying this uncontrolled


extended benefit? Paragraphs 200–202 state:
This costly expedient "—

Mr. McKinlay(Dumbartonshire): On a point of Order. Is there any difference between the right hon. Gentleman quoting the Holman Gregory Report and my right hon. Friend referring just now to the Beveridge Report, for which you called him to Order, Major Milner?

The Chairman: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. I did not interrupt the Minister solely because of his reference to the Beveridge Report. I interrupted him because I thought that he was going at length into other matters far from the confines of the Motion which is before the House. So far, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) has not done that

Mr. Butler: Thank you, Major Milner. I was following the Minister's argument, which you regarded as being in Order, namely, that previous expenditure had been extremely extravagant, and I was about to quote from the Holman Gregory Report, which says:
This costly expedient brought the insurance scheme into political disrepute and deep financial embarrassment.
We think that this Clause 's likely to bring the whole of this scheme into political disrepute and deep financial embarrassment, The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) dislikes the Clause as much as we do. He knows it is as bad as we know it is, and we shall go into the Lobby against the Clause while he is obliged to support a Clause in which he does not believe. What is the reason for that? We on this side of the Committee have a constructive alternative, which we have placed on the Order Paper, and which, if the Government and their supporters will permit us, we should like to explain later to the Committee. Our consciences are very clear. We have an alternative, which I shall describe at length to the Committee later. Meanwhile, my supporters and I have no alternative but to go into the Lobby against this Clause, which we shall do without further ado in order to accelerate procedure on this Bill.

Mr. S. Silverman: If we support the right hon. Gentleman and his friends in the Lobby against this Clause there will be no means whatever of paying extended benefit, without a means test, to an unemployed man who has been unemployed for more than 180 days.

Mr. Butler: Perhaps I can obtain the hon. Gentleman's immediate support by stating that our proposed new Clause states, in Subsection (5, b):
 a local employment guidance committee shall be entitled to recommend to the Minister that payment of unemployment benefit at the rate specified in the Second Schedule to this Act, may be made to such a person notwithstanding that he has exhausted his right thereto under this Act…

Mr. Silverman: That is the same as Clause 62.

Mr. Butler: Not at all. We want to put forward a constructive proposal for an extension of this type of benefit on certain conditions, and to rehabilitate and assist the unemployed by the aid of guidance committees.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends are against this Clause because it will give the unemployed too much money, and that my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) is against it because he does not think it will give the unemployed enough money?

Mr. Silverman: Hear, hear.

Mr. Butler: The simplicity of mind of the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) is well known, and his over-simplification of this issue is typical of many of his interventions in our Debates.

Mr. Kirkwood: Stop lecturing the Committee.

Mr. Butler: I hope the hon. Member for West Fife will listen later to our constructive proposals.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 284; Noes, 127.

Division No. 179.
AYES.
7.25 p.m.


Adams, H. R. (Balham)
Fairhurst, F
Middleton, Mrs. L


Adams, W. T (Hammersmith, South)
Farthing, W J
Mikardo, Ian


Allan, Scholefield (Crowe)
Fletcher, E G M (Islington, E.)
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Follick, M
Mitchison, Maj. G R


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Forman, J. C.
Monslow, W.


Attewell, H. C
Foster, W. (Wigan)
Montague, F.


Awbery, S. S
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Ayles, W. H.
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Morley, R.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Gaitskell, H. T. N.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)


Bacon, Miss A.
Gallacher, W.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)


Baird, Capt. J
Ganley, Mrs. C. 5.
Mort, D. L.


Balfour, A.
Gibbins, J.
Moyle, A.


Barstow, P. G.
Gibson, C. W
Nally, W.


Barton, C.
Gilzean, A.
Naylor, T. E.


Battley, J. R
Glanville, J. E (Consett)
Neal, H (Claycross)


Bechervaise, A. E
Gooch, E G
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Berry, H
Goodrich, H. E.
Nicholls, H. R (Stratford)


Beswick, F.
Gordon-Walker, P. C
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Bevan, Rt. Hon A (Ebbw Vale)
Granville, E. (Eye)
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Binns, J.
Greenwood, A W. J. (Heywood)
Oldfield, W. H.


Blackburn, A. R.
Grenfell, D. R
Oliver. G. H.


Blenkinsop, Capt. A
Grey, C. F
Orbach, M.


Blyton, W R
Grierson, E.
Paget, R T.


Boardman, H.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Palmer, A. M F


Bowden, Flg,-Offr. H. W
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Lianelly)
Parker, J.


Bowen, R.
Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side)
Parkin, Fit,-Lieut B T.


Bowles, F G. (Nuneaton)
Gruffydd, Prof W. J.
Pearson, A.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)
Guy, W. H.
Peart, Capt. T. F


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Hale, Leslie
Perrins, W.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hamilton, Lieut,-Col. R
Popplewell, E.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Porter, E (Warrington)


Brown, George (Belper)
Hardy, E. A
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Brown, T J. (Ince)
Harrison, J.
Price, M. Philips


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Proctor, W. T.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Pryde, D. J.


Buchanan, G.
Holmes, H E. (Hemsworth)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Burden, T. W.
House, G.
Ranger, J


Burke, W. A.
Hubbard, T.
Rankin, J.


Byers, Lt.-Col. F.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Reeves, J.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Chamberlain, R. A
Hughes, Lt. H O. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Richards, R.


Champion, A. J.
Hulehinson, H L. (Rusholme)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Roberts, Sqn,-Ldr. Emrys (Merioneth)


Clitherow, Dr. R.
Janner, B.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Cluse, W. S.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Cobb, F. A.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Panoras, S.E.)
Robertson I A (Berwick)


Cocks, F. S
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Royle, C.


Collick, P.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Sargood, R


Collindridge, F.
Jones, P. Asterley, (Hitchin)
Scollan, T.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Keenan, W.
Scott-Elliot, W.


Cook, T. F.
Kenyon, C.
Segal, Dr. S


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G
King, E. M.
Shaekleton, Wing-Com. E. A. A


Corlett, Dr. J.
Kinghorn, Sqn. Ldr.. E.
Sharp, Lt Col. G. M.


Corvedale, Viscount
Kinley, J.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Cove, W G
Kirby, B. V.
Shawcross, Sir H (St. Helens)


Daggar, G
Kirkwood, D
Shurmer, P.


Daines, P.
Lang, G.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Lavers, S.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Simmons, C. J.


Davies. Harold (Leek)
Lee, F (Hulme)
Skinnard, F. W


Davies, Haydn (St. Paneras, S.W.)
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Skinnard, F W


Davies, S. O (Merthyr)
Leonard, W.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Dee G.
Leslie, J. R.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Smith, S H. (Hull, S.W.)


Delargy, Captain H. J
Lindgren, G. S.
Smith, T (Normanton)


Diamond, J
Lipson, D. L.
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Dobbie W
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Solley, L. J.


Dodds, N. N
Logan, D- G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Donoyam, T
Lyne, A W
Soskice, Maj. Sir F


Douglas, f. C. R
McAllister, G.
Sparks, J. A.


Driberg, T. E. N.
McEntee, V. La T.
Stamford, W.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
McGhee, H. G
Steele, T.


Dumpleton, C. W.
Mack, J. D
Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)


Durbin. E. F. M
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Slross, Dr. B.


Dye, S
McKinlay, A. S.
Swingler, S.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Symonds, Maj. A. L.


Edelman, M.
McLeavy, F
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. sir C. (Bedwellty)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Edwards, N (Caerphilly)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Mann, Mrs. J.
Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)


Evans, E (Lowestoft)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Thurtle, E.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Mayhew, C. P.
Tiffany, S.


Ewart, R.
Medland, H. M
Timmons, J.







Titterington, M F
Weitzman, D.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Den Valley)


Tolley, L.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Ungoed-Thomas, L
Wells, W T. (Watsall)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Usborne, Henry
Westwood, Rt. Hon J.
Wilson, J H


Vernon, Maj. W F
White, H (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Wise, Major F. J


Viant, S. P
Whiteley, Rt. Hon W.
Woodburn, A.


Wadsworth, G
Wigg, Col G. E
Yates, V F.


Walkden, E.
Wilkins, W. A
Young, Sit R. (Newton)


Walker, G. H.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Younger, Han. Kenneth


Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)



Warbey, W. N.
Williams, D J. (Neath)
TELLERS FOR THK AYK5


Watson, W. M
Williams, J L. (Kelvingrove)
Mr. Bind and Mr. Coldrict




NOES


Aiken, Han Max
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Hollis, Sqn,-Ldr M. C.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O


Baldwin, A. E.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley
Raikes, H. V.


Barlow, Sir J.
Hope, Lord J
Ramsay, Maj. S


Beamish, Maj. T V H
Howard Hon. A.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Beechman, N. A
Hutchison, Col. J. R- (Glasgow, C.)
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Bennett, Sir P.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S C (Hillhead)


Birch, Nigel
Jarvis, Sir J.
Renton, D.


Bower, N.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Boyd-Carpenter, J A.
Jennings, R.
Ross, Sir R


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Scott, Lord W.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R A. (S'flr'n W'ld'n)
Lanoaster, Col. C G
Shepherd. W. S. (Bucklow)


Carson, E.
Langford-Holt, J.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Challen, C.
Legge-Bourke, Maj E. A- H.
Snadden, W. M.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lioyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Spence, H. R.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G
Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Conant, Mai. R. J. E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H
Stewart, J. Henderson (File, E.)


Corbett, Lieut. Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.
MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Studholme, H. G.


Cuthbert, W. N
Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Sutoliffe, H.


Davidson, Viscountess
Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


De la Bere R
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Teeling, William


Digby, Maj, 8. W.
Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Dodds Parker A. D.
Macleod, Capt. J.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Donner, Sqn,-Ldr. P W.
Macpherson, Mai. N. (Dumfries)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Drayson, G. B.
Maitland, Comdr J. W.
Thorp, Lt,-Col. R. A. F.


Drewe. C.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Touehe, G. C.


Duthie, W. S
Marsden, Capt. A.
Turton, R. H.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Vane, Lieut.-Col. W. M. T.


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Walker-Smith, D.


Fox, Sqn,-Ldr. Sir G.
Maude, J. C.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)
Mellor, Sir J.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Fraser, Sir I (Lonsdale)
Molson, A- H E.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Glossop, C. W. H.
Moore, Lt,-Col. Sir T
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Graham-Little, Sir E.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Winterton, Rt. Hon, Earl


Gridley, Sir A.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
York, C.


Grimston, R V.
Nield, B. (Chester)
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Orr-Ewing, I. L



Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V
Osborne, C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Head, Brig. A. H.
Peake, Rt. Hon O.
Mr. Buchan-Hepburn and


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Piekthorn, K
Commander Agnew


Henderson, John (Catheart)
Pitman, I. J

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 71—(Transitional provisions as to new entrants over school age.)

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 63, line 28, at the beginning, to insert:
 (1) If on the appointed day regulations under Section one of this Act provide for treating as employed contributor's employments employments outside Great Britain prescribed by those regulations, then regulations under this Subsection may provide for the insurance under this Act as from the appointed day of persons not so insured by virtue of any other provision of this Act, who—

(a) are on that day—

(i) over school leaving age and under pensionable age; and

(ii) gainfully occupied in any such employment; and
(b) fulfil such conditions as may be prescribed as to residence in Great Britain before the appointed day."
This addition to Clause 71 arises from an Amendment which was placed on the Order Paper by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor), who was good enough to write to me to explain why he had put down his Amendment. I should like to express the gratitude of my right hon. Friend for the manner in which that case was put to us. It is a case of very great substance and one which, now that it has been put to us, we are only too delighted to meet.
As hon. 'Members will appreciate, it is possible under the Bill for persons who have created insurance' rights within this country to maintain them if they go abroad, but where a person was resident abroad and, although employed in association with a company which had offices in this country, had no insurance rights here, it would not be possible for that person to establish insurance rights without coming back to this country and establishing a residential qualification. The words on the Order Paper give such persons who are now insured, or who would have been insured if they had been in this country, the right to become insured persons under the Bill, provided that their employers had offices in this country and that they themselves would normally have been domiciled here. The Clause does not deal with self-employed or non-employed persons, who are very difficult to handle abroad as they have been in this country, but we have made a concession in regard to a case which was also put to us by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield in connection with those persons. It is the intention of my right hon. Friend to provide by regulation facilities for such persons, if they return to this country within a given period from the appointed day — say two years, although the actual time is not yet decided —to become insured and to assume contribution rights by back payment to the appointed day. Such back payment will, of course,, only secure them rights in regard to the future and would not affect any benefit to which they would have been entitled during the period itself. In brief, this new addition to Clause 71 is to entitle persons abroad, employed by a company with offices in this country or by a person who is resident in this country, if those persons would normally have been domiciled here, to come into insurance in exactly the same way as persons who have established rights in this country and have gone 'abroad. I hope that the House will accept this Amendment, I again thank the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield.

Sir John Mellor: I want only to express my satisfaction with these Amendments. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary has given very careful consideration to this difficult and complicated matter. I am sure that the

result will be very helpful to a very large number of people.

Major Digby: I would also express my appreciation of, the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary. The concession will benefit many persons who are taking part in the export drive. Nevertheless, there are doubts in my mind as to the implications of what the hon. Gentleman said about the two year period. People who go outside Great Britain may not know for how long they are going. They may go for one year or for five. Is it the case that a person who goes away for more than two years will be unable to come into this scheme on the same terms as people. who are here? Many people will want to qualify for benefit when they come back to this country. That is important. I should be very grateful if I might have information on the point.

Mr. Lindgren: In my desire to be brief I could not have made my remarks as clear as I intended them to be. Persons now resident abroad and who have no insurance qualifications cannot come under the Bill. The Amendments will give to persons employed abroad the right to come into the scheme. It will still leave outside insurance persons resident abroad, whether self-employed or non-employed, but they can secure insurance rights when they return to this country. at any time.

Major Digby: Even after five years?

Mr. Lindgren: After five years. The intention of the Bill was that all persons abroad upon the appointed day should establish rights when they returned to this country by a period of residential qualification. The intention is by Regulation to give assistance to those self-employed and non-employed persons who are abroad, if they return to this country within a period after the appointed day. The Minister is prepared to receive representations on this matter from persons who are interested, but it is his present intention that that period should be somewhere in the region of two years. Within that period after the appointed day such persons will have the option not only to establish minimum rights but to back-date two years, in order to secure title to pension.

Amendment agreed to

Further Amendments made:

In page 63, line 35. leave out "provisions," and insert "sections."

In page 63 line 43, leave out "This section," and insert "The last foregoing subsection:'

In page 65, line 2, leave out "This section," and insert "The last but one foregoing subsection "

In page 65, line 4, leave out "subsection (1) of this section," and insert "That subsection."—[Mr. Lindgren.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Contribution rates.)

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 77, line 38, column 2, to leave out "5s. 9d." and to insert "6s. 2d."
This is one of a series of Amendments on the Paper in connection with the Amendment in regard to self-employed persons. That Amendment would entitle those persons to sick pay upon the same conditions as the normally employed persons. I will give the actual figures of cost. It is estimated that the cost of this concession will be £3,250,000, of which £2,250,000 will come from the contributions of contributors and a further£1,000,000 from the Treasury.
I would add a word to correct an impression which might have been received by the Committee from something said by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Beechman) to the effect that the self-employed person was not being treated as generously as other employed persons. The fact will be that all persons will be treated on exactly the same basis. whether normally employed or self-employed. I would further point out that the majority of self-employed persons will be of late age entrance into insurance by virtue of the fact that they have been excluded from insurance up to the present time. Their inclusion on normal conditions, at normal rates and with the normal Treasury grant is a very considerable concession to them. I feel sure that the Committee will agree with the Amendments as set out.

Mr. Butler: I regard this matter as having been fully discussed under the heading of the self-employed person. It only remains for me to repeat that the contributions are exceedingly high. I draw attention to that matter, but in view

of the Minister's concession that may be inevitable. In regard to the remarks which fell from the Parliamentary Secretary, I must remind him that it is not until the self-employed person received this extra money that they came nearer the grant of Exchequer supplement received by other persons. Even in regard to the Exchequer supplement the self-employed persons are not as well treated as the others. I am obliged to the Government for moving these Amendments to carry out their undertaking.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 77, line 38, column 3, leave out "6s. 1d.," and insert "6s. 6d."

In page 77, In line 41, column 2, leave out "4s. 10d.," and insert "5s. 1d."

In page 77, In line 41, column 3, leave out 5s. 2d.," and insert 5s. 5d."

In page 77, In line 42, column 2, leave out" 3s "4d.," and insert "3s. 7d."

In page 77, In line 42, column 3, leave out "3s. 6d.," and insert "3s. 9d."

In page 77, In line 43, column 2, leave out "2s. 11d.," and insert "35. 1d."

In page 77, In line 43, column 3, leave out "3s. 1d.," and insert "3s. 3d."

In page 78, line 20, column 4, leave out "1s.," and insert "1s, 1d."

In page 78, In line 22, column 4, leave out "10d.," and insert "11d, "—[Mr. Lindgren.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Orders of the Day — NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions as to transfer and compensation of employees of approved societies.)

(1) Regulation shall provide that:
(a) Every person to whom this section applies who in consequence of the operation of this Act suffers any loss or diminution of employment or diminution of emoluments or superannuation or similar rights shall be entitled to elect within such a period as the Minister may prescribe to be transferred and appointed to an office in the Civil Ser vice at a salary not less than he was receiving at the date of his transfer and appointment as aforesaid and in the application of the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1935, to such person the Minister may make such modifications as after consultation with the Advisory Committees on the absorption of approved societies he may consider fair and reasonable or desirable for the administration of this Act.
(b) If such person on such transfer and appointment as aforesaid shall be in any worse position in respect of any of the con


ditions of his employment or the conditions of his employment as a whole (including tenure of office, remuneration, pension, superannuation and all other benefits or allowances whether obtaining legally or by customary practice) as compared with the conditions he enjoyed at the date of his transfer and appointment as aforesaid he shall be entitled to compensation out of the National Insurance Fund.
(c) Such person shall on being transferred and appointed as aforesaid assign to the Minister his share, if any, in any pension or superannuation fund to which he may be entitled by virtue of his prior employment by an approved society or some other body (including a body of which the society is a branch or section) administering the affairs of an approved society and such share shall equal such a sum as represents the accumulation upon an actuarial basis of such moneys as have in fact been contributed by or in respect of such person during such prior employment.

(2) Nothing in this section shall affect any right to compensation conferred by section sixty-seven of this Act in the case of any person to whom this section applies either not electing or refusing to transfer or be transferred to an office in the Civil Service under this section unless the Minister proves that it is unreasonable for him not so to elect or for him so to refuse.

(3) The persons to whom this section applies shall be persons who have been employed full time wholly or mainly on health insurance business by an approved society or by some body (including a body of which the society is a branch or section) administering the affairs of an approved society immediately preceding the appointed day or who would have been so employed but for any war service in which they have been employed and for the purposes of this section the expression "war service" means service in any of His Majesty's forces and such other employment as may be prescribed.

(4) In the event of any dispute arising out of or connected with any of the aforesaid matters the said dispute shall be referred to an arbitration tribunal to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor for the purpose of the determination of such disputes.—[Mr. Peake.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Osbert Peake: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The purpose of this rather formidable looking Clause is to provide some real security for the many thousands of whole time employees of approved societies and of friendly societies whose position will be threatened and prejudiced by the passage of this legislation. The Clause seeks to provide them with a greater measure of security, both as regards the tenure of their jobs and their entitlement to superannuation. If the Government intend at a later stage of this Debate to make con-

cessions which will result in the inclusion of the approved societies and the friendly societies in the administration of the Bill, this Clause would not be necessary, but since I assume that the Government do not intend to make this sort of concession, it seems to me very important that the Committee should do something which will provide real safeguards for these people, who have been discharging very important responsibilities placed upon them by the State and who fear that, as a result of this Bill, some of them will lose their jobs and many of them will be prejudiced as regards the rate of superannuation to which they will become entitled.
Clause 67 of the Bill provides for a measure of compensation for persons who are not taken on, but these people say—and I think they say so with some justice —that they are entitled to be taken on. They fear—especially the older ones—that the State will turn them off and in that case the compensation provided by Clause 67 would come into play. Clause 67 enables the Minister by means of Regulations to provide for compensating out of the Fund for loss of employment or loss or diminution of employment or loss of superannuation or similar rights, where the loss or diminution is shown to be directly attributable to the passing of the Act. The persons covered by Clause 67, who are precisely the same persons covered by the new Clause, the whole-time employees of the approved and the friendly societies —I estimate there are some 10,000—include office staff and sickness visitors, and their salaries, no doubt, range from quite small figures to fairly substantial ones. The new Clause, over and above the compensation provided by Clause 67, provides that in the ordinary way these men shall be entitled to be transferred, that is to say their jobs shall be secured to them and secured to them at the kind of salary which they are earning at the date of transfer. The new Clause, therefore, gives them a right to continue in the jobs which they hold at the present time.
During the Debates in the Standing Committee this matter was raised in a general discussion, and the Minister made it quite clear, first of all, that where there is a transfer of function and loss of employment results, there is an entitlement to compensation. He went on to say in regard to these whole-time employees of approved and friendly societies:


 We say that persons coming under that definition are entitled to absorption, and our main efforts will he to fit them in."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 4th April, 1946, c 563.]
It is in order to carry that into effect that my Clause is necessary. These people, as the Bill stands, are not entitled to absorption. It is perfectly true that the great bulk of them, no doubt, will be taken over. The Minister estimates his staff requirements at something like 30,000, and there are probably 10,000 people who come within the definition of my new Clause. The great majority will be taken over, but the older men especially fear that they will be cast out and that some discrimination will be exercised against them.
Hon. Gentlemen representing the Government may say that there is no precedent for compelling the Government to take over a class of employees. I should not have thought that the Labour Government were much influenced by arguments about precedents. Their claim always is that they are not bound by precedents from the past, but if precedents are required I would refer hon. Members to two matters. The first is the Railways Act of 1921. On the amalgamation everybody was given perfect security in the job which he previously held. I can give what I think will be a better precedent in the eyes of hon. Members opposite, and that is a Bill which is now before the House, the National Health Service Bill, which received its Second Reading the other day. Let hon. Members turn to Clause 64 of that Bill and they will find the following words. The side note is:
Transfer and compensation of officers.
The Clause begins:
 Regulations shall provide…
It is obligatory. It is not permissive. It is not "Regulation-, may provide" but "Regulations shall provide ";


" (a) for the transfer of officers employed immediately before the appointed day solely or mainly at or for the purposes of any hospital transferred to the Minister by virtue of this Act, to the Regional Hospital Board for the area in which the hospital is situated or, in the case of a teaching hospital, to the Board of Governors of that hospital, subject, in the case of honorary officers, to such exceptions and conditions as may be prescribed;
(b) for the transfer of officers employed immediately before the appointed day solely or mainly at or for the purposes of a medical or dental school for which a new governing body is constituted under Part II of this Act, to that governing body:

(c) for the transfer of officers employed immediately before the appointed day by the Common Council of the City of London, the council of a metropolitan borough or the council of a county district solely or mainly for the purposes of functions transferred from that council to a local health authority, to that authority…"
So I could go on. Paragraph after paragraph of that Bill provides for the compulsory transfer of officers who are at present doing jobs which will be different from the jobs which will have to be done after the National Health Service Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. I therefore claim that the Committee should give to these whole time employees of the approved societies and the friendly societies an absolute right to be employed upon the transfer of their functions to the new service. That is the main proposal in the New Clause.
8.0 p.m.
The second proposal is a method of dealing with the superannuation rights which is not provided by the Bi/I. It is a little complicated, but I will try to explain it clearly. What happens with regard to the superannuation rights of a transferred officer, somebody who has been employed by the approved society, say, up to the age of 45, and is then taken over into the new service, is that he has an entitlement to superannuation rights against his old approved society. These rights are built up according to age at the transfer, but, of course, the entitlement to superannuation will not become effective until that man reaches retiring age. At the date of transference, such a man begins to build up a new claim to Civil Service pension. In the Civil Service, pension depends upon salary at the date of retirement multiplied by a fraction —x over 80, according to the number of years of service. If a man had 10 years' service, then it is ten-eightieths of his salary at the date of retirement.
The point of the new Clause is that, as things stand at present, a man's career is broken in the middle by transfer from the approved society to the service of the State, and the two separate pensions which he will earn, one from the approved society up to the date of transfer, and the other from the State after the date of transfer, will not be as good a pension as that man would have earned had his career not been broken in the middle in this way. Had he had a continuous career, either in the Civil Service or in


the service of the approved society, he would come off better, in almost every case, as regards superannuation rights, than he will when his career is divided into two quite separate periods.
Therefore, our new Clause proposes that, on transfer to the Civil Service from the service of the approved society; these men shall surrender to the State whatever their superannuation rights with their society are worth at the date of the transfer, and, against that, they shall be entitled to count for Civil Service pension their previous years of service with the approved society. I hope I have succeeded in making a somewhat complicated matter clear to the Committee.

Mr. Logan: Am I to take it that continuity of service with an approved society will mean that, on the transfer of whatever the man would have been entitled to from the society, on its being handed over to the State society, he will be able to reckon on the full period of employment in both the State society and the approved society?

Mr. Peake: That is the suggestion in the new Clause, and I think it is a great improvement on the arrangements as they stand in the Bill. I think this new Clause is worthy of support in all parts of the Committee, and I therefore commend it to the consideration of hon. Members.

Mr. Basil Nield: Not having been a Member of the Standing Committee which dealt with this very important Bill, I am glad to have the opportunity of supporting the new Clause which has been explained by my right hon. Friend. I often think that it is useful to recall the essential factors behind a general suggestion such as this, and I think those factors in this matter are these. We all know that a considerable number of people for many years have been engaged in the business of health insurance. We know, and it is, indeed, agreed by the right hon. Gentleman, that they have done useful work. It is also plain that, when the new Measure comes into force, these persons will be displaced from their employment. The issue thereupon arises, since our enactment will interfere with the employment of these persons, what is our

duty? I feel that hon. Members in all parts of the Committee will say that it is our duty to take compensatory measures. These measures are surely of two kinds—either to seek to re-employ those who are displaced, or to compensate them with money. By Clause 67, there is provision for monetary compensation, but I feel most strongly that the best measures to be taken are those of re-employment of those displaced from their jobs. In these circumstances, this new Clause does that which I feel is right in regard to these people who for many years have been engaged in this business.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman said in the Committee that it is the intention of the Government to absorb the employees of approved societies in its new organisation, and I hope he will believe me when I say that I would at once accept, and gladly accept, an assurance of that kind from the right hon. Gentleman, but I would ask the Committee to consider with the greatest care the vital principle that we must see these measures in the. Bill. When the right hon. Gentleman gives an assurance, that is a matter which we feel sure will be fulfilled, but it will not, in law, stand any displaced person who is displaced from his employment in any stead at all. This is a matter of general principle, which I desire to emphasise as best I can, and I think it is useful to adumbrate it by a little illustration.
Today, we may be told that it is hoped that all those employed by the approved societies will be absorbed into employment under the new scheme. We do not have that in the Bill, and we therefore rest upon the assurance of the Minister. If, in a year's time, one of our constituents comes to an hon. Member and says, "I was employed by an approved society. I was displaced from that position by the new Bill, but, in spite of the Minister's assurance, I am not able to be employed,"The hon. Member concerned will be entirely helpless, because, if the matter is taken to the court, the judge will say, "I am interested in Acts of Parliament, not in the pages of HANSARD or in the assurances of Ministers."I therefore ask the Committee to see that, if we all feel that this is a salutary Measure, it is placed in the Bill. I hope that, in these circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman will be ready to


agree with these proposals and that the Committee will take the same view.

Mr. Logan: I think the new Clause is worthy of the consideration of the Minister, and I say so because I have practical experience of this business, having been engaged in its administration since the Act came into operation. I am fully convinced that the House would be doing justice—and this is not a question of myself—to the men engaged in this work who have been carrying on continuously from 1912 to the present time. I feel that there is a moral obligation—I do not want to put it any greater than that—upon any Government, Labour or any other, to see that those faithful servants who, after a long period of time, find that they are no longer wanted, will receive the recognition that good firms would give to them, and which has been observed in various amalgamations that have taken place up and down the country.
I have been on various Committees on Bills where the question of compensation has been discussed, and I have always found that the first essential is that provision should be made for servants who are to be discarded. During the war, these went through a very strenuous time. They were, in fact, carrying on an essential service. I understand that the Minister is not going to take over everyone, and it may be said that there is a duty imposed on the employer of labour not to discard such men and put them on the market in a body, without some form of compensation.
I am speaking with full knowledge, and do not wish to do any injury to the Bill. I am fully aware of its complications, and am most anxious to see it passed. It is a wonderful Bill, and its like has never been known before. But I do not want to be silent, and to feel that I have failed in my duty to those who have given real, loyal and honest service. I feel that some protective Clause ought to be inserted in the Bill. I know the Minister is most generous in his attitude towards labour. This Bill is his "baby." He is anxious to see it go through. I do not want to see any Division on this matter, but I want compensation to be given as is suggested in this new Clause. When it is a matter of moral obligation I am not concerned, whether the suggestion comes from Tory,

or from Labour benches All that I am concerned about is that we should do our duty to those who have served the State so loyally.
I feel that a case has been made out for this new Clause. I cannot for the life of me see why there should be any objection to assenting to it. It does not destroy the nature of the Bill, but it does justice to a section of people who may not be reemployed. It gives the Minister the right of selection, and helps him to bring into his organisation scientifically trained men who have had a lifetime of experience in the working of a similar Measure. This Measure will require trained men. I think that on consideration the Minister will find that such a course will bring unity and concentration of purpose such as we have never had in public life before. This is the greatest Measure I have seen about to be placed on the Statute Book, I hope that the Minister will take note of the remarks which have been made on this subject.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Burden: I wish to add a few words in support of the proposed new Clause. I am sure the Committee will agree that it has been submitted in an able, lucid, and reasonable speech by the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake). The principle of compensation for persons displaced has been accepted time after time, and goes back to the Local Government Act of 1888. It operated particularly in the Railways Act of 1921, and again in the Act which amalgamated the transport undertakings under the London Passenger Transport Board, and in local government Measures far too numerous to mention.

Mr. David Renton: I am sure the Committee would be interested if the hon. Member could name a single instance in which the State has stepped in and where this has not been done.

Mr. Burden: If the hon. Member could be a little patient, I am coming to that point. It would be very regrettable if this great Measure were marred by bringing about a feeling of uncertainty among the men and women who have undertaken duties which, after all, were imposed upon them by the State, and who have loyally carried out those duties. In the march of time there hive to be changes. Surely. those who carried out


those duties ought not to suffer. The Minister may say that the Bill as it exists provides ample safeguards. I am afraid it does not; I think it needs strengthening.. For the first time, a Bill is before the Committee which will dry up 'he work of sections of the community carrying out responsible duties. while making no provision for them.
I commend this new Clause to the Minister. We have accepted as part of our policy that in any undertaking where it is necessary for the State to assume responsibility—for the mines and so on—the owners of the capital should be adequately compensated. That has been done in regard to the Bank of England and in other instances. Are those engaged in the industry, or the undertaking, to be less favourably treated than those who own the capital? In view of the position of the people involved, I ask the Minister to look again at this proposal and see that they do not suffer any anxiety in the operation of this great Measure.

Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown: I support this new Clause moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake). I think it only right and just that these men should be fully covered, and fully considered. We know that a great many of them will be required. They will be essential to help the Minister carry out his. task. But there must be some who may not be quite so well off, or able to fit into the same positions which they have occupied for the past few years. It is no fault of theirs that they cannot fit in. It is because the State is taking over a job they have been carrying out. Therefore, it is up to the new employer, the State, to see that where they cannot fit in, they should be no worse off as a result. Moreover, where these persons are fitted in, the work they have been doing for many years ought to be taken into account by their new employer. I hope the Minister will consider this new Clause seriously, and accept it.

Mr. Lipson: I very strongly support the new Clause. It ought not to have been necessary for it to haw.: been moved, because the Government ought to have been alive to their obligations to these men and to have made adequate provision for them in the Bill. Nobody can deny that the State has a

their services are no longer required, as a result of legislation, to see that there is adequate compensation, and that moral obligation ought to be made into a legal obligation. There is at present great anxiety among men who have served in the past and who will be affected by the Bill. They will lose their earnings as a result of it. They ought to welcome the Bill, because it is the culmination of much which they have spent their lives in trying to do, but the result of it will be to throw some of them on to the scrapheap without their receiving any compensation. That is quite wrong and contrary to the public conscience. If the Government oppose the new Clause and refuse to provide adequate compensation, they will be creating a bad precedent. The precedent in the past has been for compensation to be paid. I hope the Government will consider the views of hon. Members in all parts of the Committee, and do what I believe the country would desire. There should be adequate compensation to men who are deprived of their position as a result of legislation.

Mrs. Manning: When this matter was discussed in the Standing Committee, the Minister said that the emphasis would be on absorption, and I am pretty sure that, as far as absorption is concerned, we can rely upon my right hon. Friend's statements. We were also led to believe that where absorption was impossible, compensation would be paid. The point about which I want to get an assurance from the Minister, and without which I should feel that I ought to support the new Clause, is the superannuation of the people who are absorbed. I would like to be certain that in absorbing men, who will then become civil servants, the Government will reckon all the years of back service of these men in computing the new superannuation rates That is not an unusual thing to do. Very often teachers who have become officials of organisations, men working on the railways who have become trade union officials, have had their back service taken over by their new employer and used in reckoning superannuation. I would like to have an assurance from my right hon. Friend that he will take over back service in reckoning the superannuation for people who are absorbed.

Mr. Hollis: I should be rendering ill service to the Committee if I


introduced a note of contention into the Debate on the new Clause. I would like to underline two points. First, with regard to the matter raised by the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning), I can hardly believe that the Minister will not agree to reckon back service for superannuation, because the overwhelming justice of that seems to be generally admitted by the Committee. On the question of compensation, about which hon. Members opposite and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) have spoken, I would make the point that this Clause deals with compensation, but that it is not primarily concerned with compensation but with the taking over of labour. The Government have already, in Clause 67, admitted the obligation to compensate the servants of the approved societies. That being so, surely, from the point of view of financial economy, just as much as from the graver and weightier points of view which have been emphasised, as the Government have to pay these people in any event, it is common sense that the Government should use, and give the fullest guarantee that they intend to use: the services of these people as much as possible. The compensation will be paid by Clause 67, whether the new Clause is accepted or not. For the two reasons I have given, I join with hon. Members in all parts of the Committee in urging the Minister to accept this Clause.

Mr. Lindgren: Whether it was intentional or not, I think the Committee have rather been misled, perhaps in the first instance by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden). Compensation is provided under the Bill for everyone who is not absorbed within the organisation. I feel it is a little unfair to suggest that compensation is not provided, for it is provided under Clause 67

Mr. Burden: On a point of Order, Alt-Beaumont. The Parliamentary Secretary knows perfectly well the men to whom I was referring. It was impossible for me to develop the point.

The Deputy- Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): That is not a point of Order

Mr. Lindgren: I know the inference which my hon. Friend was making. He was referring to relieving officers who, because of the benefits that will be given

under the Bill, are afraid they will become redundant. I think it would be unfair to make a charge on the contributions of an insurance fund for compensation for relieving officers who become redundant in local government as a result of general social improvements. There is a responsibility for absorption where there is redundancy in any group of persons. There is a responsibility for absorption within local authorities. To say that relieving officers, or those associated with public assistance departments, are of little or no use to a local authority other than in the departments in which they have been engaged is unfair to these men. I have worked with them and I know them. They are adaptable and efficient, they have considerable organising ability, and they have been taken into other forms of employment within local authorities. I wish the Committee had approached this matter in the same way as the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Poole) approached it in the Standing Committee. The hon. Member was a very valuable Member of the Standing Committee, and he made excellent contributions to the Debates. He started his speech on this subject by saying that compensation was of little use, and that what we must provide was a job for every man and woman in order that they could pay their rent and provide necessities for their families. That is the approach that we make in this Bill. The right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), in a speech that was rightly described as effective, said that the intention of the new Clause was to cover the whole-time employees of approved societies. If that be the intention of the new Clause, I am surprised, because its provisions go far outside that intention. I hope that hon. Members have read the new Clause. It says that we must offer a post in the Civil Service to
 every person to whom this Section applies who in consequence of the operation of this Act suffers any loss or diminution of employment or diminution of emoluments or superannuation or similar rights "—
who, at the appointed day, is—
'employed full time wholly or mainly on health insurance business by an approved society"—
That would mean that we should have to offer a full-time post in the Civil Service to any person who lost anything, whether£t' or£1,000, whether he was fit or unfit for the job, efficient or inefficient.

Mr. Molson: I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary does not want to misinterpret what the new Clause says. If he will look at Subsection (3), he will see that it states:
The persons to whom this Section applies—
and if he will read that Subsection, he will find that it does not apply to the people to whom he has been referring.

Mr. Lindgren: I am very sorry if I have misread the Clause, but as I read it, it states that we should offer a post in the Civil Service—

Mr. Molson: Will the hon. Gentleman read Subsection (3)?

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Lindgren: It reads:
The persons to whom this Section applies shall be persons who have been employed full-time wholly or mainly on health insurance business by an approved society or by some body (including a body of which the society it a branch or section)…
There is no question of a limitation. On the appointed day, the person could have been so employed for one, two or three weeks. There is no question of how long the period of employment is. There are no qualifications in that regard. Also, there is no definition of what the loss is. In so far as the Clause suggests, I fear it is wholly unacceptable. May I say at once that my right hon. Friend is glad that the Clause has been moved, because it provides an opportunity to explain what is the approach to this problem and what is being done. The first line of approach has been that to which I referred earlier, as expressed in Committee by the hon. Member for Oswestry, that is, the provision of employment for all persons who are displaced, provided they want to come and that they are effective in coming.

Mr. Hollis: What does the hon. Member mean by "effective in coming?"

Mr. Lindgren: I mean that when one makes an offer of employment one must give the person concerned an opportunity to refuse it.

Mr. Hollis: The phrase used by the hon. Member was "who desire to come and who are effective in coming." What is meant by "effective in coming "?

Mr. Lindgren: All I intended to say was that we are desirous of offering a post to all persons who are now wholly or

mainly employed on the approved societies staffs, who desire to come to us, and that general arrangements to that end are being made.

Mr. Logan: Will my hon. Friend explain what he means by "mainly"? understand "wholly." What is the reservation in regard to "mainly"?

Mr. Lindgren: "Mainly" has always been interpreted as 50 per cent, or over.
My right hon. Friend appreciates the primary fact that this Bill will be made or broken by its administration. It is not only a question of the amount of benefit, but the promptness of payment of that benefit and the manner and spirit in which the insured person, man or woman, is dealt with by officials in the locality. Its administration will, in tact, be the most important consideration. Therefore, to secure that the administration is effective we desire the best brains, the best organising skill, the best administrative ability available amongst those persons who, up to the present, have had experience in the type- of work that has been carried on within the scope of national insurance in the years since 1912. Accordingly, we approach the question of building up an effective administration from the point of view of bringing into the Ministry all the accumulated skill that has been acquired by persons who have been administering the existing insurance scheme. Our first approach is the provision of employment for persons who are displaced, not the provision of compensation. Those who cannot be absorbed for one reason or another are, under Clause 67, entitled to compensation.
There will be—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds referred to this in his speech—great scope for the recruitment of staff into the Ministry, because of the large network of offices which will have to be set up, in order to meet local needs. But our first responsibility in regard to recruitment is to those persons who will be redundant when this Bill comes into operation. When we assume these functions now administered by the approved societies, the staffs of these approved societies will have lost the jobs which they hold. Our first responsibility is to see that every one of these men and women who desires to come to the Ministry has the opportunity. That is our first


responsibility. Over and above that there will still be scope for recruitment. In the general acceptance of responsibility, opportunity for recruitment must next be given to those who have in fact been agents of approved societies but not directly employed by those societies. I refer to agents of insurance companies—those insurance companies who have contracted to work for approved societies in localities. Many of these insurance agents—in fact, the vast majority of them —have a very wide knowledge of administration of health insurance work. In particular they have great experience of field work to their credit. We shall be glad to receive applications from them, and to take them in. The third group of people from whom we will draw recruits are those persons who have suitable experience and who desire to come to us. I refer to local government officers and the like.
What steps have been taken by my right hon. Friend in this matter? As soon as the announcement of Government policy was made last November, my right hon. Friend arranged for approved society officers representing the managements of approved societies, and representatives of the trade unions who cater for the workers within approved societies, to come together in conference. Arising from those consultations with the employers, the approved societies, and with the trade unions, as representing the employees, we have in fact set up two committees. One committee will deal with the machinery of transfer, the absorption of the approved societies into the State machine, the transfer of funds, the records, and that sort of thing. It will deal purely with the machinery for facilitating the transfer. The second committee will deal with staffing problems, the machinery which will be necessary for the absorption of the staff of the approved societies into the Ministry, the question of superannuation—which was referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds, and in particular by the hon. Lady the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning)—and the question of general rights in regard to compensation. Those problems will be dealt with by these committees who will.consider and then report to the Minister. On the reports of those committees the Minister will consider the matter and decide whether he will accept them.

Mr. Molson: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that the committees which we were told about on the Committee stage have not yet met?

Mr. Lindgren: The hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) interjects that the Standing Committee was informed that these committees were in being. One of those committees had met during the Committee stage, and the other committee had not met.

Mr. Molson: Has it met yet?

Mr. Lindgren: Both committees have now met and they are working. In fact, so far as the staffing committee is concerned, it has proceeded very considerably on its way. Both committees have met, they will prepare their reports, and submit them to the Minister. The Minister will consider those reports and will accept them, with or without modifications, or reject them. This House is protected further because under the terms of Clause 67 there is a requirement to bring the regulations which have then to be made before the House for approval by affirmative Resolution. Therefore, the House will have to deal with them.
I suggest with the greatest respect that it is far better to allow those persons—the employers and employees within the industry—to deal with these very complex matters of the absorption of staff. The conditions under which these people work vary very considerably; their superannuation rights vary considerably, from nothing to some quite good funds. All these complex problems ought to be dealt with, and recommendations made in regard to them, by those who have intimate working knowledge of them. They are the approved societies, who have been the employers, and the trade unions covering the employees of the approved societies. They will make the recommendations to the Minister, and we feel that is a much better way of dealing with the matter than fettering the Ministry, or those Committees which have been set up, by set details such as are included in this Amendment. I assure the Committee that the desire of the Minister is to see that justice is done to those persons who have been administering National Health Insurance within the approved societies up to the present time. That is the desire of those persons who have had experience of management


committees and of the general executive officers of those approved societies at the present time. It is the desire, of course, of the trade unions which exist for the purpose of improving the conditions and obtaining the best possible conditions for the staff employed by those approved societies.
I ask the Committee to leave the matter as it is at present with the Minister, with the two committees which are considering these problems and which will report to him. Regulations arising from their reports will be laid before the House and, as they are subject to affirmative Resolutions, the whole matter can then be discussed in the House.

Mr. Logan: Is it absolutely certain that when officers are taken over, or hands from the approved societies are taken over, the status of civil servants will be given to them?

Mr. Lindgren: The persons will come over to the Civil Service under Civil Service conditions. In fact the civil servants themselves were very anxious that the taking over of these people would not undermine the conditions of the Civil Service, and the Staff Side of the Whitley Council has emphasised that point strongly to the Minister.

Mr. Medland: Will they be established or temporary?

Mr. Lindgren: It is a little unfair to shoot questions at me in regard to hypothetical cases like that. [HON. MEMBERS: "No.") Well, who were being referred to? The persons we take over will be taken over as permanent members of the staff, but there may be some persons who will not. After all, the question of age comes in. Some persons may be taken on—there is no question that we are starting up a new scheme and not putting on an age limit. A person of 62 may have very valuable experience which we urgently need in the first few years in order that the machine shall not creak. The question of whether one individual as compared with another may be permanent or not, cannot be answered at the present time. In the main the answer is that these committees are deciding the conditions under which the people will come over, and I think this Committee can leave it to the previous employer

sand to the trade unions to see that those conditions are well safeguarded.

Mr. Hugh Molson: I confess that as I listened to the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary, my bewilderment grew. He began by going out of his way to attack the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden) for apparently having suggested that there was no compensation payable under Clause 67. I listened with the closest attention to what the hon. Gentleman said. He did not deal with compensation at all, he said that in all cases of which he knew—and he cited a number of examples where, in the past, the State has stepped in and taken over some going concern—it had not only paid compensation to the owners of that concern but has also taken over those who were engaged in making a living out of it.

8.45 P.m.

Mr. Lindgren: We are doing that here.

Mr. Molson: The hon. Gentleman says that they are doing that here. I was going to come to the latter part of his speech. My bewilderment grew because of the attacks he made; they raised the temperature of the Debate, which had been extremely good tempered until he rose. He proceeded to say that it was his right hon. Friend's intention to take all these people over. If that is so. why make so much difficulty about incorporating this responsibility in the Bill? If there had been some of these employees of approved societies here tonight, I wonder what impression they would have gained from the hon. Gentleman's speech? He indicated that they expected to take a number of them over. We know perfectly well that, during the transitional period, it is the right hon. Gentleman's intention to take over the present concern almost as it is and, then, at some later time, when it suits his convenience, to get rid of those who have borne the heat and burden of the day for 32 years. He will use them for an initial two or three years.—[HON. MEYBERS: Oh."] If there is anything unfair in what I have said, no doubt I shall be corrected. It is, I think, common ground among Ls that it is impossible. for the right hon. Gentleman to set up a complete framework for the administration of his scheme at the beginning.

Mr. Lindgren: indicated assent.

Mr. Molson: There is going to be a transitional period?

Mr. Lindgren: indicated assent.

Mr. Molson: During that period the existing framework is going to be used and the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to give any guarantee such as is contained in this Clause that those who are going to be used during the transitional period will be used subsequently.

Mrs. Manning: Some will die off.

Mr. Molson: In so far as the persons concerned die off, they will not be employed "on the appointed day" and, therefore, they do not come within the framework of this Clause. This is a matter of very great importance. Here we have an organisation which was set up largely by legislation of this House in 1911 and, at a later time, for reasons which appear to this House to be good, it is decided to set up a new framework. Those men who have been engaged upon this work during that time are entitled, in my submission, not only to have compensation if they are dismissed, but some guarantee that they are going to be taken over.
The hon. Gentleman has said that it is the Minister's intention to take over all those whom they select for the new service. But he is not prepared to incorporate any guarantee in this Bill. What he has kept on saying towards the end of his speech, and has repeated a number of times, is that it is his right hon. Friend's intention to take them over. He spoke about the responsibility of this House. This House and this Committee have a responsibility for passing legislation and to ensure that that legislation, when conferring benefits upon many people, shall not inflict great hardship and injustice on a certain section of the community. It is in order to try to provide adequate guarantees for a deserving section of the community that we have moved this new Clause, and we ask the Government, even now, to be willing, if not to accept it,

at any rate to say that they will incorporate some guarantee that these men shall be included in the new service.

Mr. C. Williams: A very vital question was raised just now by the hon. Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Mr. Medland) as to whether these new civil servants are to be established or not. Few hon. Members of this Committee know more about the Civil Service than the hon. Member who raised that question. When we are dealing with a matter of this kind which vitally affects the people concerned, even if the Minister cannot give the necessary information now, we ought to be told at some time, at any rate on Third Reading, whether these men and women who are having the whole of their lives changed, are to come under the establishment system, with all the advantages which that brings, or whether they are to be temporary. I ask that question because it is only right that the Minister should give a fuller answer, and because this is a matter which affects the constituencies of every Member of this Committee

Mr. Lindgren: I thought I gave the answer. The answer is "Yes" except in exceptional cases where, in fact, we take over persons who are over the normal retiring age

Mr. Williams: They may be the older people and the very type of persons who require most help under this scheme. I think some concession should be made The years they have spent in the service of those concerns entitle them to some assistance so far as their pensions are concerned. I emphasise that, because I think the Minister did say that he would consider their case on the length of their service, and if he will give a plain answer indicating that he will take over the whole lot, I shall be satisfied.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes. 141: Noes, 271.

Division No. 180.
AYES.
8.53 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Bower, N.
Clarke, Col. R. S.


Aitken, Hon. Max
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Clifton-Brown, Lt. Col. G


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.


Baldwin, A. E.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G T.
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)


Barlow, Sir J.
Bullock, Capt. M.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Cuthbert, W. N.


Beechman, N. A.
Byers, Lt.-Col. F
Davidson Viscountess


Birch, Nigel
Carson, E.
Davies, Clement (Montgomery)


Bowen, R.
Challen, C
De la Bère, R.




Digby, Maj. S. W.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Renton, D.


Dodds-Parker, A.D.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Donner, Sqn-Ldr. P. W.
MacAndrew, Col: Sir C
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Drayson, G. B.
MacDonald, Sir M; (Inverness)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T (Richmond)
Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Ropner, Col. L


Duthie, W. S.
Mackeson, Lt. Col. H. R.
Ross, Sir R.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Sanderson, Sir F.


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
MacLeod, Capt. J;
Scott, Lord W.


Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Manningham-Buller, R E.
Snadden, W. M.


Glossop, C. W. H.
Marples, A. E.
Spence, H. R.


Glyn, Sir R.
Marsden, Capt. A.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Granville, E. (Eye)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Gridley, Sir A.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Grimston, R. V.
Maude, J. C.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Gruffyd, Prof. W. J.
Mellor, Sir J.
Studholme, H G


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Molson, A. H. E
Sutcliffe, H.


Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Head, Brig. A. H.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Henderson, John (Catheart)
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C E.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Touche, G. C.


Hollis, M. C.
Nield, B. (Chester)
Turton, R. H.


Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Vane, W. M. T


Howard, Hon. A
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Wadsworth, G.


Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Osborne, C.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Hutchison, Lt-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Walker-Smith, D.


Hutchison, Col. J R. (Glasgow, C.)
Pickthorn, K.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Jarvis, Sir J.
Pitman, l. J.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Jeffreys, Genera! Sir G
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Jennings, R.
Prescott, Stanley
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Langford-Holt, J.
Raikes, H. V.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Ramsay, Maj. S.
York, C


Lipson, D. L.
Rayner, Brig. R.



Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Low, Brig. A. R. W
Raid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Sir Arthur Young and




Mr. Drewe




NOES


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Cluse, W. S
Follick, M.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Cobb, F. A.
Forman, J. G.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Cocks, F. S.
Foster, W. (Wigan)


Alpass, J. H.
Coldrick, W.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Collick, P.
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Collindridge, F.
Gaitskell, H. T N.


Attewell, H. C.
Collins, V.J.
Gallacher, W.


Awbery, S. S.
Colman, Miss G. M.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S


Ayles, W. H.
Comyns, Dr. L.
Gibbins, J.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Gibson, C. W


Bacon, Miss A.
Corlett, Dr. J.
Gilzean, A.


Baird, Capt. J.
Corvedale, Viscount
GlanVille, J. E. (Consett)


Balfour, A.
Cove, W. G.
Gooch, E. G.


Barstow, P. G
Daggar, G.
Goodrich, H. E.


Barton, C.
Daines, P.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.


Battley, J. R.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Greenwood, A. W J (Heywood)


Bechervaise, A. E
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Grenfell, D. R.


Berry, H.
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Grey, C. F.


Beswick, F.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Grierson, E.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Davies, S. O (Merthyr)
Griffiths, D, (Rother Valley)


Bing, Capt. G. H. C.
Deer, G.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)


Binns, J,
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Griffiths, Capt. W D. (Mass Side)


Blackburn, A. R.
Delargy, Captain H. J
Guy, W. H


Blenkinsop, Capt.
Diamond, J.
Hale, Leslie


Blyton, W. R.
Dobbie, W.
Hall, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Aberdare)


Board man, H.
Dodds, N. N.
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)


Bottomley, A. G.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.


Bowden, Flg.-Oftr. H W.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Hannah, w. (Maryhill)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Dumpleton, C. W.
Harrison, J,


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)
Durbin, E. F. M.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Dye, S.
Henderson, A, (Kingswinford)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)


Brown, George (Belper)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Harbison, Miss M.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
House, G.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Hubbard, T.


Buchanan, G.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)


Chamberlain, R. A.
Ewart, R.
Hughes Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Champion, A. J.
Fairhurst, F.
Hughes, Lt. H D. (W'lvtrh'pton, W.)


Chelwynd, Capt. G. R
Farthing, W. J. 
Irving, W. J


Clitherow, Dr. R.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) 
Janner, B







Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Nally, W
Stubbs, A. E.


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Naylor, T. E.
Swingler, S.


Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Symonds, Maj. A. L


Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Keenan, W.
Nicholls, H, R (Stratford)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Kenyan, C.
Noel.-Buxton, lady
Thomas, l. O. (Wrekin)


King, E. M.
Oldfield, W. H.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Kingdom, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Oliver, G. H.
Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)


Kinley, J.
Orbach, M.
Thurtle, E.


Kirby, B. V.
Paget, R.T.
Tiffany, S.


Kirkwood, D.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Titterington, M. F.


Lang, G.
Parker, J,
Tolley, L.


Lavers, S.
Parkin, Flt-Lieut. B, T
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Perrins, W.
Ungoed-Thomas, L


Lee, F. (Hulme)
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Usborne, Henry


Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Viant, S. P.


Leslie, J. R.
Proctor, W. T.
Walkden, E.


Levy, B. W.
Pryde, D. J.
Walker, G. H.


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Pursey, Cmdr. H
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Lindgren, G. S.
Ranger, J.
Warbey, W. N.


Lipton, Lt.-Col, M.
Rankin, J.
Watson, W. M


Logan, O. G.
Reeves, J.
Weitzman, D.


Lyne, A. W.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Walls, P. L. (Faversham)


McEntee, V. a T.
Richards, R.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


McGhee, H. G.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Mack, J. D.
Robens, A.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


McKinlay, A. S.
Royle, C.
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Maclean, N (Govan)
Sargood, R.
Wilkins, W A.


McLeavy, F.
Scollan, T.
Wilkinson, Rt. Hon. Ellen


Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Scott-Elliot, W.
Willay, F. T. (Sunderland)


Mainwaring, W. H.
Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Mann, Mrs. J.
Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Manning, Mrs. L (Epping)
Shurmer, P.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Marquand, H. A.
Silverman, S. S, (Nelson)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Simmons, C. J.
Wills, Mrs. E. A


Mayhew, C. P.
Skinnard, F. W
Wilson, J, H.


Medland, H. M.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Wise, Major F. J


Messer, F.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S)
Woodburn, A.


Middleton, Mrs. L.
Smith, S. H (Hull, S.W.)
Woods, G S.


Mikardo, Ian
Smith, T. (Normanton)
Yates, V. F.


Mitchison, Maj. G. R
Snow, Capt. J. W.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Monslow, W.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Younger, Hon Kenneth


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Sparks, J. A.



Morfey, R.
Stamford, W
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Steele, T.
Mr. Pearson and


Mort, D. L.
Strachey, J.
Captain Michael [...]


Moyle, A.
Stross, Dr. B

Orders of the Day — NEW CLAUSE.—(National Employment Guidance Council and local employment guidance committees.)

(1) There shall be established a National Employment Guidance Council and such number of local employment guidance committees as the Minister of Labour and National Service shall think fit.

(2) The National Employment Guidance Council shall consist of a chairman who shall be appointed by the Minister of Labour and National Service and six other members who shall be appointed as follows:

(a) one shall be appointed by the Treasury,
(b) one shall be appointed by the Minister,
(c) one shall be appointed by the Board of Trade,
(d) one shall be appointed by the Assistance Board,
(e) one shall be appointed by the Minister of Labour and National Service to represent employers,
(f) one shall be appointed by the Minister of Labour and National Service to represent trade unions.

(3) The local employment guidance committees shall each consist of a chairman who shall be appointed by the Minister of Labour and National Service and who shall be an independent person having a knowledge of the industrial conditions of the locality, and five other members, one of whom shall be appointed by the Minister of Labour and National Service, one by the Minister, and one by the Assistance Board, and of the remainder, who shall be appointed by the Minister of Labour and National Service, one shall be chosen to represent employers within the locality, and one shall be chosen to represent trade unions having a considerable number of members within the locality.

(4) The functions of the National Employment Council shall be:

(a) to receive reports from the local employment guidance committees upon questions bearing upon the administration of this section,
(b) to inform local employment guidance committees of all developments which may aid or enable local employment, guidance committees to assist employed persons who for any reason experience difficulty in obtaining and retaining employment,
(c) to issue such advice and general directions as it may think fit to local employment


guidance committees to ensure that the practice of such committees in exercising the duties imposed upon them by this section shall conform, so far as practicable having regard to the particular conditions of any locality, to a standard applicable throughout the United Kingdom.

(5) It shall be the duty of local employment guidance committees—

(a) in any case where an employed person has been in receipt of unemployment benefit for a period of six months without interruption, to give such advice and make such recommendations to such person as appear to them to be of assistance to such person in obtaining employment.
(b) in any case where an employed person shall have exhausted his right to unemployment benefit under this Act to give such advice and to make such recommendations as are specified in paragraph (a) of this subsection, and a local employment guidance committee shall be entitled to recommend to the Minister that payment of unemployment benefit at the rate specified in the Second Schedule to this Act, may be made to such a person notwithstanding that he has exhausted his right thereto under this Act, and that payment of such benefit (in this Section referred to as 'extended benefit') shall be for such period or periods and subject to such conditions, and shall be made in such manner, whether in whole or in part, in money or goods, as the committee may recommend.

(6) In the exercise of their duties under this Section a local employment guidance committee shall take into account the present and possible future industrial conditions in the locality, and shall so far as practicable take into account also the personal factors arising in and bearing on any case requiring their consideration, and they may where they so think fit consult with the National Employment Guidance Council before coming to a decision.

(7) Subject to the provisions of this Section, regulations may authorise the Minister to pay unemployment benefit to insured persons, on the recommendation of a local employment guidance committee, for such number of days of unemployment as may be specified in the recommendation, being days for which they are not entitled to such benefit by reason only of having exhausted their right thereto.

(8) The sums required for payments of extended benefit under this Section shall be repaid to the National Insurance Fund out of moneys provided by Parliament.

(9) Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to modify or limit in any way the provisions of Section thirteen of this Act.

(10) This Section shall apply only to days of unemployment occurring within the period of five years beginning with the appointed day.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I shall move this Clause in as succinct a manner as possible, as it will not now be necessary for me to demolish Clause 62. That has been sufficiently demolished by the right hon. Gentleman's own hon. Friends and by hon. Members on this side of the Committee. I therefore confine my remarks to the purely constructive aspect of the new Clause that we are moving. Upstairs in Committee, the Opposition were obliged to accept the statement of the Minister that he was not prepared to have extended benefit administered by the Assistance Board, and this Clause is designed to accept that position and not to go back to the old days when the Assistance Board, with great efficiency, did administer these matters. That they would have been able to continue to administer them was the belief of the Coalition Government, in which so many of the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends were, and to that policy many members of the present Cabinet subscribed. We do not propose in this Clause to go back to that situation. I am mentioning this to show the right hon. Gentleman that many of his own friends on that Front Bench are in the same position as I am in regard to the Coalition Government.
Having accepted the Minister's decision that extended benefit is not to be administered on what has been called the means test by the Assistance Board, how were we to move in this Bill a Clause to fit in with the Minister's idea about the means test? We decided that the only manner in which to do it was to continue the sort of scheme the Minister had in mind—the opportunity for extended benefit to be paid in certain circumstances; but we suggest, under this Clause, that the administration should be done in a manner much more efficient and much more likely to succeed than that which the Government have in mind.
What suggestion do we make? The suggestion we make is that, instead of using purely judicial machinery—which the Minister is using and, thereby, making the cardinal mistake of mixing up the judicial and executive machinery, calculated to lead to a mix up in the payment of extended benefits—instead of that mixture, which is against all English traditions, we would substitute committees consisting, as the Minister's committees do, of an employer and an employed person, and having sitting with them representatives of certain of the Government


Departments chiefly concerned, so that the real problems of unemployment can be dealt with. We suggest that these local guidance committees shall sit and be coordinated at the centre by a central employment guidance council, so that there may be a constructive attitude towards the problem of the unemployed. The Minister himself said he hoped we would take a constructive attitude towards the unemployed I believe that we should put this matter fairly and squarely upon the Ministry of Labour.
I have had two short opportunities of serving in the Ministry of Labour, and I only wish I had had longer there, to learn more and to do better work. But the fact is that on each occasion I was very much impressed by the fact that the main activities of the Ministry were devoted to what I call negative work—dealing only, although in a human and positive form, with those suffering from a lack of a constructive policy, namely, the unemployed and long term unemployed, and those suffering from disabilities of many sorts. Therefore, although the drafting of this Clause is not as expert as it would have been had it been drafted by Parliamentary counsel, the sincere object of it is to concentrate on the constructive aspect of unemployment to deal not only with block unemployment in distressed areas but with the individual cases, such as those of persons suffering from physical defects or maladjustment of some sort, and with the causes of unemployment where there is redundancy of particular occupations in a particular area.
The suggestion is that these committees shall recommend to the unemployed certain courses of action, and that the case of every unemployed man or woman shall be reviewed after a period of six months, and then, to take the intelligent attitude of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), to recommend that the case should be reviewed after six months and then reviewed again on the expiry of the person's benefit rights. This scheme is designed, as I say, to take a constructive attitude towards the unemployment problem.
I want most particularly to refer to certain questions that have arisen since I had the opportunity of studying these matters in Office. The first point which comes to my attention is the necessity of dealing with the many disabled un-

employed. I have been shocked to find how comparatively few persons have registered under the Disabled Persons Employment Act. By March, 1946, 402,190 had so registered, of whom only 51,816 came from the unemployed, and of whom 42,898 were suitable for further employment. I suggest that part of the duties of this Council should he the business of making this disablement scheme work, not only in regard to ex-Servicemen, but in regard to the unemployed as well. I consider that if we adopt machinery of this sort, we shall be dealing with one of the problems of administration which arise in Government circles, namely, the lack of use of this Act and the application of its provisions to the problems of unemployment and the difficult cases which arise. Not only do I suggest that this Guidance Council should be used for that purpose, but that it should be used also for vocational guidance. In this I am inspired by the Report of the Ince Committee, which sat whilst I was a Minister and reported afterwards, on juvenile employment services. In regard to juveniles, the Ince Committee, which is the latest and most up-to-date model issued from Government garages, desired proper vocational guidance to be given to juveniles. The report states:
The bulk of the placings of all juveniles are not first placings. There will often be need of two, three or more placings before some juveniles settle down 
I believe that to be the case with many unemployed, particularly in the case of redundant occupations. What we suggest is that this Guidance Council should use the same procedure which the Ince Committee recommended for juveniles, for the under thirties, who are unsettled in that period of their lives through no fault of their own, and are submitted to difficulty in finding jobs. We consider that they should be dealt with by the method of vocational guidance which was recommended by the Ince Committee. Our object would be to find the best man for a particular job. Therefore, it will be seen by the Committee that the objects of this scheme are constructive. If the method of dealing with this problem is wrong, I hope that the Minister will say how it is wrong.
We do not think the Minister's method of administration will work. We consider that it will be too casual, that no sort of


general case law will develop from his scheme, and therefore there will be no uniformity of treatment throughout the country. That is the great weakness of Clause 62. Some men will be granted extended benefit in one part of the country, but in another part men under similar conditions will not be granted extended benefit because the committees will be different. Our object is to centralise the scheme so that there can be correlation at the centre, and comparison of the types of cases dealt with. We also think that the Council will provide an opportunity to bring to bear the most up-to-date methods in placings and in psychology. It will be able to bring to the local committees the most up-to-date centralised knowledge on unemployment conditions, whether it be in pockets or not. Therefore, we have drafted this Clause, however amateurish it may seem, and I think it would need amendment in some particulars. We appeal to the Government to pay attention to the constructive suggestion I have made to try to deal with the problem of unemployment and extended benefit, not by the method it was dealt with between the two wars, but in a more constructive manner and in a better atmosphere than ever before.

9.15 p.m.

Mrs. Castle: None of us on this side of the Committee who have keen anxious about Clause 62 are likely to be attracted to this proposed new Clause. We are not, if there was ever any danger of our being, likely to be lured into the Lobbies against Clause 62, if this new Clause were to be substituted for it, at the end of our voting. This Clause avoids none of the faults to which we have objected in Clause 62, and includes very many evil new features, which bode no good at all to the unemployed of this country. We could have no clearer indication of what is the Opposition's real concern about the treatment of the unemployed as outlined in this Bill. It is apparent that, under this new Clause, they are not so much concerned about the treatment being too harsh, as concerned lest the treatment should be too gentle.
The purpose of this new Clause is quite clearly one which is, in the name of the constructive treatment of the unemployed, going to subject them to all the old

humiliations, and, in fact, many new ones. Our objection to Clause 62 is not met, because this new Clause still leaves the payment of unemployment benefit, when the right to statutory benefit under Clause 12 is exhausted, to the decision of the Minister on the recommendations of local bodies. It reproduces that particular item of Clause 62. Admittedly, it specifies the constitution of the local bodies a little more clearly, and also superimposes on them some kind of vaguely coordinating national committee; but so far as we are concerned, a tribunal by any other name would not smell any sweeter, and, therefore, it is hardly likely to endear the Clause to us. Surely, the real kernel of this Clause —despite the fine words of the right hon. Gentleman about his concern for fitting in the disabled, and his desire to see vocational training extended—lies in the end, when we come to study the scope of the recommendations which it is proposed that the local committee should make to the Minister, outlining the conditions under which extended benefit should be paid. Here, we find that the local committee shall be entitled to recommend to the Minister that payment of extended benefit
 shall be for such period or periods and subject to such conditions, and shall be made in such manner, whether in whole or in part, in money or goods, as the committee may recommend 
I do not want to put too much confidence in my own intelligence, but if that means anything at all, it means to me two things: First of all, you have the restoration of a means test, because you are entitled to pay benefit in part, and the grounds on which you pay benefit in part would obviously have relation to the financial circumstances of the applicant; and, worse than that, by the restoration of payment in kind, you are reducing the unemployed to the very worst conditions of poor relief.

Mr. Stanley Prescott: Is the hon. Lady in favour of the abolition of all means tests?

Mrs. Castle: I am in favour of the abolition of the means test for the payment of unemployment benefit. We have spent a lot of time in considering that in this Committee, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was in attendance on his duties.

Mr. Prescott: rose—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman cannot speak unless the hon. Lady gives way.

Mr. Prescott: I am entitled, am I not, to rise to my feet on a point of Order? I was about to submit to you, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, as a point of Order, that in view of the personal reference, I was entitled to make an explanation about my absence from the Committee.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is not.

Mrs. Castle: I was merely going to say, in conclusion, that it is obvious that once again we are having from the Gentlemen of the Opposition recommendations for the treatment of the unemployed, which though nominally in the interests of the unemployed, are directed towards hounding them and degrading them in the future as in the past as though unemployment were a crime and not a disaster.

Mr. Nigel Birch: The hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) speaks always with great fire and she has not disappointed us tonight. One of the things to which she appeared to object most strongly was the constitution of these tribunals as explained by my right hon Friend. The main difference between the constitution of these tribunals and the constitution of the tribunals set up before, was that these are to have representatives of Government Departments on them, The hon. Lady strongly objected to that, and, as I understand she is a Parliamentary Private Secretary to a Cabinet Minister, that is very discouraging, but I ask her to have just a little more confidence. This Clause is really only an effort to make sense of Clause 62 as laid down in the Bill. Clauses 12 and 62 caused recrimination in Committee and they have clearly done so tonight. Perhaps they will again tomorrow. They cause recrimination by hon. Gentlemen opposite against us and a great deal of mutual recrimination on the other side of the Committee. I do not complain about that, but it is a fact. I should like to say at the outset that I believe passionately that the Minister was absolutely right when he said that the vast majority of the people in this country would rather work than be idle.

Mr. Gallacher: That does not apply to hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Birch: I further absolutely agree that the longer anybody is sick or unemployed, the more his income needs increase. The big problem in the future, believe, will be slightly different from the problem that was argued about in the '20's and '30's. The problem of the future—the problem indeed which we have now—is what to do with people who are unemployed, when, in fact, the overall condition of the country is that there are far more jobs than workers. At the moment it is the fact, taking the situation as a whole, that there are more jobs than workers, and yet there is a considerable volume of unemployment. That is partially in the old "pockets," where difficulties have always arisen and partly arises from those marginal cases, which have been mentioned in the Debate to night, where one gets a fellow who is handicapped in some way and is difficult to fit into industrial life.
Obviously, the Government are right to take the most energetic measures about the location of industry, but I do not think we can rely always on bringing the job to the man, and further getting the man what he wants, which is a job at his own trade. The vast majority of the people in this country want to work in their own trade and in their own area. We see now that it is not always obtainable, and there are a number of reasons, I think, for supposing that it will not be always obtainable. First, there are causes entirely beyond the Government's control such as the exhaustion of natural resources like coal or iron, or some district is producing principally for export and tariffs are put on by some foreign country, which closes the market That is something which the Government cannot avoid. Lastly, there is the possibility of new inventions, new techniques and changes in fashion, which means we have to scrap plant and start again. There are measures such as nationalisation, which will be liable to cause pockets of unemployment. When you get reorganization you get larger—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is getting extremely wide of the new Clause. We canot have a discussion on nationalisation now.

Mr. Birch: I was merely saying, Mr. Beaumont, that the result of larger plants would be the creation of local pockets of


unemployment. That would be bound to happen. The problem of these marginal men is one which we shall have with us always, one which needs guidance, and which may not be completely soluble within a narrow area. There must be a certain amount of mobility, although we hope as little as possible. The first task must be to try to fit the person in somewhere in his own area, but we have to recognise that that will not always be possible, and that someone may have to be advised to take a new trade and go further to his work. There must be some degree of industrial mobility. That is fully brought out in the Coalition White Paper on employment and in Sir William Beveridge's book, "Full employment in a free society," and is a generally recognised fact. I believe we can fit in the people who are handicapped, and do away with these pockets of unemployment, provided we have a national plan which is properly worked out. The idea of these councils is that there should be advice on the national level. The Ministries concerned should be able to make their voices heard. Under the Bill, there will be only one umpire, one representative of employers and one of trade unions, who can take only a purely local and parochial view. I believe, most strongly, that this problem must be solved by persuasion, and rot by compulsion. I believe it can be done if this plan is properly worked out. The Fabian Society, according to Appendix G of the Beveridge Report, says:
 We also propose very strong sanctions against the malingerer, or the slacker. Refusal to cooperate with the placement, retraining, or rehabilitation service, or with the public medical service, would be dealt with very severely.
That is more severe than anything which the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn has said about us. I could never subscribe to a statement like that. I believe that that is absolutely wrong. I believe that the problem of localised unemployment, and the difficulty of putting a man in his right place, can be solved, and that these guidance councils will be a step towards solving the problem.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: In criticising Clause 62 the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) put forward what I thought were very good

and powerful arguments, but he had the merit of dealing with the Clause as an insurance Clause and this is, after all, an insurance Bill. My failure to understand this new Clause is due to the fact that it is connected with something other than insurance. Had it been introduced on another occasion to deal with the unemployment problem, I should have understood it, but as an insurance Clause it has no relevance at all.
When one contrasts the unemployment problems in the inter-war period with that which exists at the present time—as I have heard hon. Members do during the last few days--it should be borne in mind that the problem is not an ordinary unemployment problem in either case. The present insurance scheme would have failed during the inter-war period because we had failed to realise in time that the unemployment problem was not an ordinary problem. It was due not to the position of trade but to the fact that the world was preparing for war. If one looks at the unemployment figures—

Mr. Follick: Preparation for war partly solved the unemployment question.

Mr. Morris: I agree, but the figures of unemployment in Germany rocketed to something like 6,000,000 and in this country to something like 3,000,000. I do not know what the American figures were but they were in the neighbourhood of—[An HON. MEMBER "Fourteen million."] Very well, 14 million. What were the conditions? Every country in Europe had thought itself to be self-supporting and was pursuing its own ends irrespective of everyone else. Unemployment figures soared, and to try to solve the problem one country after the other prepared for war. In face of this no scheme, neither that of the present Minister nor the one proposed by the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler), would have solved it. My criticism of this Clause is that it seems to me to be irrelevant to the situation.

Mr. Raikes: I confess I was astounded by the argument put forward by the hon. Gentleman from the Liberal Benches that the heavy unemployment in the days before the war was due mainly to the fact that the nations of the world were preparing for war. In view of the fact that the highest unem-


ployment which ever occurred in this country took place something like seven or eight years before the war began—indeed, before ever Hitler came to power —and that in point of fact unemployment figures in this country, in the United States, and elsewhere, were considerably smaller between 1931 and 1939, the hon. Member's argument seems to me to be even more astonishing than most of those that I have the honour of hearing at different times from the Liberal benches.
So far as the new Clause itself is concerned, I would emphasise that this is not a question to discuss with heat. I think that hon. Members on every side of the Committee desire beyond all else that we should try to avoid, as best we can, a recurrence of long-term unemployment. The Minister himself, speaking earlier in the Debate, observed that it was perhaps unfortunate that during the bitter days of long-term unemployment those who were fighting, as he said he himself was fighting, against the means test, had not enough time to give to tackling the prevention of long-term unemployment. This Clause aims at trying to attack the question of unemployment before it becomes too prolonged and endeavours to establish an expert machinery for tackling the question in its earlier days. It does it in this way. First and foremost, in quite a different way from anything under Clause 62, which we have already discussed, it provides for guidance committees to examine and try to help any unemployed man or woman before extended benefit ever arises. We lay down that after six months of continuous unemployment these committees, which are widely based, should have the opportunity of approaching a man, considering his individual needs, and trying to make suggestions which have no penal sanction about them at all.
It is only at a later stage, when the ordinary benefit has come to an end, that the committee will once again, under our proposal, examine the individual case. An hon. Member upon the Liberal Benches seemed to think that this proposal was out of place, but I do not see anything wrong in proposing a method of preventing prolonged unemployment, which is capable of damaging any insurance scheme. The committees set up under the Ministry of Labour are committees of experts. The whole idea is to tackle the individual case and to try to

prevent men from becoming long distance unemployment cases. Many people in this House realise what tragedy that form of unemployment brings. The more quickly we can deal with those who need some form of treatment the better There are other people who need training. I believe that it would be absolutely fatal to train men during continued benefit unless we were in a position to offer employment at the end of that training. That is why men of experience representing various Government Department and with a knowledge of local industry should be appointed to sit with these committees and to plan ahead. If we tell men to go into training, are we in a position to promise them a job at the end of the training? The alternative, training in a penal camp, I believe, would be the end of any scheme.
Reference has been made to transferring men to other areas. Only in cases where no other remedy was possible should the committee consider transferring a man elsewhere. Their main task as far as possible is to bring work to the area where men and women have their homes. They should consider each case on its merits and tackle it in its early stages. I believe that would be a better approach to a solution of unemployment than the purely judicial tribunal being set up by Clause 62. I ask the Minister and the Committee, before they turn to specific objections they may have to parts of the proposed new Clause, to remember that we do not put it forward as a perfect new Clause, any more than the hon. Member opposite is a perfect Parliamentary Secretary. He is good in parts —in a good many parts. For that reason.I support the proposed new Clause and I believe that in putting it forward we are trying to be helpful to the Government and are submitting a plan which is a slight improvement upon that which is proposed in the Bill.

Mr. J. Griffiths: During the Committee stage the Opposition criticised Clause 62 —or Clause 61 as it then was—and they wished to delete the Clause. During the discussion it was indicated that when we reached the stage at which we have now arrived, an alternative to Clause 62 would be proposed. I take it that the proposed new Clause which the right hon. Gentleman has moved is his alternative to Clause 62. If they had had their way earlier, Clause 62 would not have


appeared in the Bill at all. They divided against it. In Clause 62 is a provision by which those who exhaust their statutory benefit can apply and, on the recommendation of the tribunal, receive extended unemployment benefit at the same level of benefit that is provided in the Bill generally. In so far as this new Clause is an alternative to Clause 62, it is a very curious provision indeed. It provides that a person about to exhaust his standard benefit would apply to the local committees which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to set up. The local committees would examine the case and would recommend whether benefit should be paid and also recommend the manner in which it should be paid. Not only is this the operation of a means test or needs test coming into the new machinery which the right hon. Gentleman proposes, but something which is even older and in many ways even more objectionable, the old question of relief in kind.
At the moment the position is that if a person exhausts his standard benefit, he can go to the Assistance Board and they can give benefit in cash. The alternative is that, when the standard benefit has been exhausted, the unemployed person will go to a new committee which it is proposed to set up and that committee will examine each case and will recommend what shall be paid and how it shall be paid. That is the public assistance committee all over again. [An HON. MEMBER: "Without being elected."] Without being elected and without being responsible to anyone. There is a further point, Clause 62, with its provisions—whatever may be the criticism and objection—is subject to the control of the Minister and the Minister is subject to the control of Parliament. The Regulations under Clause 62 have to be submitted to a National Advisory Council set up by the Bill who will publish them and invite comments and criticism, and I have to table them in the House and they are subject to the decision of Parliament before they can be operated. This proposed National Council will be completely free of any responsibility to any Minister of Parliament or anyone else. It will issue instructions to the local committees and need not submit those instructions to any advisory council nor to the House of Commons nor to any Minister. The whole of the operation will

be completely outside the control of any Minister and Parliament itself.
For those reasons I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman's proposal is no kind of alternative to Clause 62, and I have no hesitation in asking the Committee to reject it. The right hon. Gentleman has mixed up in this Clause other suggestions and other provisions which I think the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris) was right in pointing out were not relevant to the Bill. For example, the committee is not to be set up by the Minister of National Insurance who is the Minister responsible for the operation of the Bill, but by the Minister of Labour. Clearly this provision, if there were any desirable features in it at all, ought to be incorporated not in this Bill but in some Bill for which the Minister of Labour is responsible, because he will set up the committee. What is suggested is that the existing machinery which the Ministry of Labour has built up, and which they are developing and extending, for offering vocational guidance and assistance to unemployed persons, should be completely scrapped and replaced by this new kind of machinery.

Mr. Butler: That is not so.

9.45 P.m.

Mr. Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman knows. He was himself Minister of Labour for a period. Almost since the Ministry of Labour began its work, it has had attached to its employment exchanges local employment committees whose task and function have been to assist the Minister of Labour and in particular the local officers of the employment exchanges in this very great problem. It is a human problem of the greatest magnitude to assist those who are unemployed, and who look like becoming completely unemployed for a long period, back to a new life, and in guiding them, training them and in choosing their vocations. The local employment committee does that work now. The Ministry of Labour is giving further consideration to the work of the local employment committees and to the desirability of developing them so that they can become even better instruments through which guidance and help can be offered to the unemployed in their efforts to find new work. I am quite certain myself that it would be a very grave mistake indeed. at this juncture, when the Ministry of


Labour has become better fitted than ever in its history, because of wider experience in problems of this kind, to take this question of the resettlement of all kinds of persons out of their hands and put it into the hands of a council of this kind which is responsible to no one and is just working on its own. For those reasons, I hope the Committee will reject this new Clause

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of Order. Before this discussion is closed, I would like to submit to you, Major Milner, that this new Clause which we have been discussing is not really in Order. It seems to me to be completely outside the Title of the Bill. This Bill, as the Title says, is a Bill to—
 establish an extended system of national insurance providing pecuniary payments by way of unemployment benefit, sickness benefit, maternity benefit—
and it then deals with other benefits, and says:
To provide for the making of payments towards the cost of a national health service, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.
This new Clause has a marginal note concerning a National Employment Guidance Council, and I submit that it has nothing to do with the matter in the Bill.

Mr. Stanley Prescott: Further to that point of Order. In view of the fact that the Clause we are discussing has already taken some considerable time, is it in Order, at this late stage, to make such a submission?

The Chairman (Major Milner): In reply to the last hon. Member it is perfectly in Order to raise a question of Order at any stage. In reply to the hon. Member who raised the matter, I had considered it, and it is quite clear in my mind that the new Clause is covered by the long Title as being a matter "connected with the matters aforesaid," and is quite in Order.

Mr. Silverman: Further to that point, I should think that the "matters aforesaid" were matters of the collection of contribution and the payment of benefits, and that matters connected with them were matters relevant to either of those things, and that it is not in Order, in a Clause of that kind, to bring in entirely new matter quite outside the purposes of the Bill, which, I submit, is what this new Clause attempts to do.

Mr. Gallacher: Further to that point of Order. Does not this new Clause, under the cloak of setting up machinery, attempt to reintroduce the old poor-law system, and, therefore, has nothing whatever to do with national insurance?

The Chairman: the hon. Member has raised a question on the merits, not a question of Order. In my view I am quite clear that the new Clause is in Order, and I hope the Committee will now come to a decision.

Mr. McGovern: I am sorry that I was a rather silent Member of the Committee, and I do not raise my voice in heat now, but I must say, in connection with this proposed new Clause, that I think that the Tory mind has never profited by past ' experience at all and that the Opposition are advocating here in this new Clause a line which is completely alien to work of this character. I see in it an attempt to form what might he the prelude to a further board which would be almost analagous to the Nazi Party in Germany. Whoever concocted it, one would have thought, attended the Nazi rallies at. Nuremburg, because the only thing that is not provided in regard to the unemployed is a "cat o' nine tails."It suggests payment in kind and the setting up of boards as an imposition on the workers of this country. One would actually think that in dealing with the unemployed people of this country, they were dealing with some form of criminal class, whereas the system that they themselves represent, has been the cause of the development of unemployment in this country, and throughout the world. I am sure that having entered into the Debate at this stage they have brought together in support of the Government and against the proposed new Clause a solid phalanx of labour opinion in this Committee. If a choice had to be made between the Minister's proposals and this Clause, there would be no difference of opinion. I deprecate that we have at this stage, after the tremendous gruelling the Tory Party got at the last Election—

The Chairman: The hon. Member's argument is not relevant to the new Clause before the Committee.

Mr. Pickthorn: On a point of Order. Is it not introducing a very dangerous precedent, that we should have a Debate in this Parliament without his speech?

Mr. McGovern: I would rather have mine than that of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) I do not intend to pursue the matter. The Tory Party, in this new Clause, has simply shown all the old class antagonism and bias against the common people in the proposal to set up this form of board. If they are wise, they will take note of the lessons learned in the General Election, and do something more intelligent.

Mr. Prescott: I shall not detain the Committee long, but in view of the speech—

Mr. Leslie Hale: On a point of Order. This Clause provides, or purports to provide, under Subsection (8) that expenditure
for payments of extended benefit under this section shall be repaid to the National Insurance Fund out of moneys provided by Parliament 
Surely that goes outside the terms of the Financial Resolution, and in my submission, on that ground, the Clause is out of Order.

The Chairman: I had considered that matter, and in my opinion the new Clause is within the Financial Resolution.

Mr. Prescott: As hon. Members opposite are making such great efforts to stop any Debate on this new Clause, I think that, although, as always, I have many wise things to say, I will let the matter go.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal) considered.

Mr. Eden: I beg to move, "That further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."
I move this Motion to enable the Government to give some indication of their intentions in regard to the progress of Business. It is now nearly ten oclock. [Interruption.] I do not know why hon. Members opposite are groaning. The Government side have taken up nearly all the time of the Committee today. I have risen, as a matter of courtesy, for the information of the House, to ask the Government's intentions, and I propose to do so, even if hon. Members groan all night. We have a right to ask the Government that. [Interruption.] I am in

no particular hurry. If the hon. Member wishes to interrupt me, I will give way.

Mr. Kirkwood: Oh, no, go ahead.

Mr. Eden: I am deeply obliged. Perhaps I may be allowed to make the further observation that the first new Clause to be called, if it should be in Order, is one of very great importance. It affects the lives of people throughout the country. I hope the Government do not intend to ask us to embark on that discussion at this hour of the night.

Mr. Attewell: This is the time when we get brilliant speeches.

Mr. Eden: No hon. Member can say that there has been anything in the nature of an unnecessary waste of time tonight. [Interruption.] I do not know why hon. Members opposite go on making these interruptions.

Mr. Hale: Does not the right hon. Gentleman remember that, after certain undertakings had been given, the Opposition divided upon the Motion to suspend the Rule?

Mr. Eden: The Opposition are perfectly entitled to divide on that Motion; the hon. Gentleman does not know the Rules of the House. I am dealing with the present state of Business. I ask the Minister to consider whether this very important new Clause should not be taken tomorrow, whether we should not adjourn now and take the new Clause when the House can give it full time, and, let me add, when the Press of the country has an opportunity of reporting the discussion. I can understand that that is not very welcome to hon. Members opposite, but that is not a reason which should animate us. I suggest to the Government that there has been fair cooperation, and there will continue to be fair cooperation. whatever their decision may be—there is no question of obstruction—but I hope they will consider whether the important matter which we have to discuss should not be taken tomorrow.

10 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Whiteley): It had been our desire to finish at the end of the next new Clause. I appreciate that it is an important one, but I do not see why we should not go on at least for some time,


even if the final speeches have to be made tomorrow before the Division is taken. I think we ought to make very great progress towards the end of this new Clause, so that we may have an opportunity of finishing the Bill tomorrow.

Mr. Molson: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate what time he has in mind?

Mr. Whiteley: I think we should see how we get on.

Mr. Eden: I am perfectly content with that. It seems to be a reasonable offer, so far as I am concerned. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — NEW CLAUSE. —(Arrangements with friendly societies.)

(1) Subject to prescribed conditions the Minister may make an arrangement with any friendly society whereby in respect of any class of benefit covered by the arrangement claims to benefit by or in respect of any insured person being a member of such society shall be made to the society in accord with the arrangement and payment of benefit shall be made by the society on behalf of the Minister and the. provisions of this Act and regulations made under it as to determination of claims and questions and administration of benefit and other relevant matters shall be modified accordingly in the application to such an insured person.

(2) Arrangements may be made under this section to relate to sickness benefit, maternity benefit, widows' allowance and death grant.

(3) "Friendly Society" means a friendly society (not being a collecting society within the meaning of the Industrial Assurance Act,.1923) registered under the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, the rules of which provide for voluntary subscriptions of the members thereof (with or without the aid of donations) for any of the purposes mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of Section eight of that Act.—[Mr. Goodrich.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Goodrich: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) has referred to this new Clause as being of great importance. I am of the opinion that his view is correct. It has been put down for obvious reasons, which I shall endeavour to explain as I proceed. Before I explain the fundamentals of the Clause, it is well that I should make my position clear to the House having regard to rumours which are prevalent. It has been said that I am interested in this

Clause only because I am a prominent official with a very high salary. I am not a prominent official of any friendly society so I do not draw any high salary. It has also been said that since I have been in the House I have been made a Parliamentary agent, again with a salary. I would remind those critics that I am doing what I have done for the past 35 years—doing my job without a salary. Having explained that, I am sure that I am on better grounds than are some of my critics.
The reason for this Clause is fairly obvious. First, the House has riot yet heard why the friendly societies cannot be included within the framework of this National Insurance Bill. We have heard some excuses as to why they should be kept out. This is the first objection I see: It is regrettable, and I understand the reason, that an important matter such as this had to go to a Committee upstairs. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Apparently I am getting support from hon. Gentlemen opposite. I shall depend on their support later. By committing this important Measure to a Committee upstairs, this House was asked to accept a report from 50 Members of the House nut of a total of 650. What is more, the deliberations of that Committee, although reported, excluded a large number of Members of the House who were interested in this matter. For that reason this Clause had to come before the House tonight. Arising from that is the fact that when the vote was taken on a proposal very similar to the Clause we are now discussing, the margin between the "Ayes" and the "Noes" was so small that in my view it is imperative that the whole House should have an opportunity of discussing this matter and voting upon it. It will be recalled that the result of the vote was: Ayes, 24; Noes, 19. I am sure hon. Members would agree with me that the margin on this issue was extremely small.
Before hon. Members vote on this issue, they should have the whole facts before them. The main factor—and this must not be forgotten—is that this proposal deals with over 8,000,000 friendly society members— 8,000,000 potential voters — [Interruption]. Hon. Members cannot get away from it. This deals with 8,000,000 people who have said, individually and collectively, that they do not want a dual


payment of their benefits when they are sick. They have said clearly and definitely that they want the payments made at one time, through one channel. I remind hon. Members that these 8,000,000 members of friendly societies represent approximately one-third of the insured population. We have not heard any real reason why the friendly societies should not be included We have heard some objections, however, and I think it is right in view of statements which have been made, both inside and outside this House, that I should refute them. One of the real reasons why friendly societies are not to be included in this Bill is said to be because they administered unequal benefits under the National Health Insurance Act. I am not going to deny that. However, I think I am entitled on behalf of the friendly societies to explain how that came about. The National Health Insurance Act made provision for friendly and approved societies to run the funds belonging to the Government on a quinquennial basis, leaving to the friendly societies, according to the manner of management of their concern, the right to give additional benefits if that could be done. That went on and still goes on today.
It is right and proper that hon. Members should know that the friendly societies saw the evil of that 20 years ago. Twenty years ago a friendly society approached the Minister of Health and said to him, "It is wrong that some friendly societies, because they are not asked to take certain classes as clients, have greater funds at their disposal than others and that some members of the community are, therefore, receiving greater benefits than others." Having regard to what has been said, that everyone is entitled to the same rate of benefit, the logic of the argument was quite true, but what did the Minister say? The Minister said "No"; he refused to adopt the suggestion of the friendly society, that the surplus cash accruing at the end of the quinquennial period should be utilised for helping the less fortunate brethren in the insured world. As a result, the extra money has been accumulating year after year, going into the central funds when it ought to have been going into the pockets of the members, and today it stands at over —300 million. I say quite sincerely to all those who criticise the

friendly societies regarding unequal benefits, that they should bear in mind that it is not the fault of the friendly societies, but of various Ministries since the inception of the Act—and I am not too sure that some hon. Members on this side of the House are immune from blame.
The present Minister has said the new Bill will make provision for everyone, and, therefore, unequal benefits are not possible. The friendly societies under the new Bill would be giving what the Minister says they must give. There will be no more quinquennial valuations; the statutory benefit is already laid down. There can be no variation, and so far as the administration of the Fund is concerned, it is clearly laid down within the framework of the Bill. The Minister said on the Second Reading of this Bill, and in Committee, that he wants a unified administration. I suggest to him that he has it, and that the friendly societies are with him. What has he done to get this unification? Let the minds of hon. Members go back to the Amendments we have been discussing this evening. He has brought three Ministries into one. He has brought together the Ministry of Labour, the Post Office, and his own Ministry, which he took away from the Ministry of Health. He has unified the scheme of insurance in that way, but that is a different kind of unification from the unification of payments. He has three different kinds of payments; he will continue to pay the pensions through the Post Office, he will continue to pay the unemployment benefit through the employment exchange, and now he is to pay the sickness and death benefits through his local offices. I suggest then to the Minister that he has three different forms of payment to which could be added one more if he so desired, and on this I will speak in a moment. The fact is, how ever, that these payments are to be deal with at one centre in Newcastle, from which he will direct the local offices and the other offices to which I have referred When my right hon. Friend refers to duplication, I say that in my view tha duplication is continued.
10.15 p.m.
I am entitled to ask the House to sup port my Clause and when I say the, House, I mean the House. This matte is not of recent development. The Beveridge Report and the White Pape


have been the subject matter of interviews and conferences extending over a period of three or four years. During that time, friendly societies, together with all other societies, have seen the Ministries in exactly the same way as the trade unions did. It is not good enough to say that, when a certain memorandum was issued at the time of the Election, it was issued without prior conception, deliberation and consideration. I know differently; I know exactly what transpired. That memorandum was sent out in good faith and there is every reason why those Members of the House who voted or gave a pledge, as a result of that memorandum, should have the support of the House now. Those Members who gave that pledge, gave it in good faith. It is the wish of most of them to keep faith with the pledge and it is my objective to help them to do so, without breaking away from their political allegiance. It has been said by the Minister that the Ministry have received no communications from individuals supporting the claim of the friendly societies. One does not doubt that that is true. Probably the only communications the Ministry have received have been from lodges and branches who have sent in expressions of a collective view by means of resolutions. I would like to know how many hon. Members can say that they have not received a letter of some kind on this issue. Moreover, I have observed a considerable amount of lobbying of hon. Members by individual members of friendly societies on this matter. It is true that the individual effort in support of this claim has been very substantial.
I am not one who stands up for the purpose of criticising without putting forward some constructive policy. On two previous occasions overtures have been made to the Minister with a view to finding a way out of our joint difficulties in this matter of the inclusion of friendly societies. At a meeting in the House last week I put a certain proposition to the Minister requesting him to look into the matter with a view to finding a way out of the difficulty, bearing in mind the pledge which Members had given. Following that, I sent a telegram from Manchester to the Lord Privy Seal as acting Leader of the House. I said:
 Further to discussion yesterday morning at Parliamentary meeting in House relating to Friendly Societies and National Insurance Bill, you will remember I stated that if Minister still declined to include Friendly Societies

under his statutory powers it might be possible to provide for their inclusion under his administrative powers without detriment to Minister's own scheme. From conversation with Members after meeting I gathered my suggestion received considerable support. I have now had an opportunity of discussing my proposal with my colleagues who welcome it. They have asked me to approach you with a request that you and Griffiths will meet Newman Townley and myself on Monday next, 20th if at all possible with a view to discussing this proposal in order to reach amicable settlement which can be announced by Minister on Report stage of Bill. Could you arrange for such a meeting any time Monday next for this purpose.
I followed that up with a confirmatory letter, and in this I said:
I beg to confirm my telegram of yesterday, suggesting a further interview on the matter of the Friendly Societies in relation to the National Insurance Bill. The telegram was as follows.'
which is what I have just read.
 As I explained to the meeting on Wednesday morning, I really think that an amicable settlement can yet be made in this matter without loss of prestige or injury to dignity to Jim Griffiths, in the following way.
It is well that hon. Members should listen to the proposition that I put:
 As you know, my amendment suggests an addition to Clause 46, but it necessitates an amendment to the Bill in the House, which I fear will give rise to acrimonious discussion, and this I am most anxious to avoid. It occurred to me, and it is now confirmed by my colleagues, that the existing Clause 46 is wide enough in its terms to permit Griffiths to utilise the Friendly Societies through the operation of Regulations. Such a course would make the voluntary Friendly Societies a part of the Minister's administrative machinery in the same way as he intends to utilise Post Offices and Unemployment Exchanges, but it would have the advantage of bringing them in without amending the Bill. If you and Griffiths can see your way to effect an amicable settlement of this very disagreeable dispute between the two sides in the manner suggested, it will be regarded as a Godsend to all those Members of ours who are feeling very much under the weather because of the pledge they have given in all good faith.
10.30 p.m.
I am very pleased to say that the Ministers met us. There was a time when I thought an amicable settlement would be reached. We discussed the matter at great length and were very hopeful that the end in view would be attained. I think it is only right that the House should know what the proposals were that we put before the Ministers. They were as follow:
(1) In framing his administrative regulations, in addition to the three proposed alternative methods of obtaining benefit (as stated by the Minister in Committee) a fourth


alternative method to be given to the insured person, namely, the option of obtaining his sickness and allied benefits through an Authorised Friendly Society.
During the Committee stage the Minister indicated that it was his intention to ask those reporting sick to state how they wanted their benefits paid, and he said it would be either at their homes, at the local security offices or through the Post Office. The proposal here suggests that he should add a fourth method, namely, through the friendly societies where the members would draw their own voluntary benefits. This proposal also gave the Minister power, under his regulations, to determine for himself what shall be an authorised friendly society. Comment has been made about friendly societies who are not friendly societies dealing with sickness benefits. That is perfectly true; some friendly societies deal with death benefits only. As the Beveridge Report and the White Paper have said, those friendly societies which pay voluntary benefits from their own funds should, or could, be included within the administration of the scheme. I say that the Minister would have power, under his regulations, to determine who shall be the authorised friendly societies for the purpose of administering this scheme to their own members. The second proposal was:
 Officers of ' authorised friendly societies ' to have the same responsibility relating to the payment of State benefit claims as those. attaching to officers of Local Security Offices. (Authorised Friendly Societies to he subject to the direction of the Minister in this respect.) 
There, again, this compromise with regard to friendly societies did not seek to take anything away from the Minister. It rather sought to put this under the control of the Minister, who would direct everything in relation to the payment of benefit. The third proposal was:
The actual detailed administration of such a scheme to be worked out between Officers of the Ministry and representatives of Friendly Societies.
I now come to the crucial point. Up to now, all that the friendly societies have been told is that the 'Minister does not like this, and does not approve of it, and so on and so forth. In no single instance has the Minister explained—although he may no doubt explain tonight—why men like the friendly society officials who have 35 years' experience could not administer

public funds. [HON. MEMBERS: Some of them."] Some of them may have done less than others, but speaking as a member of a friendly society for 35 years, with a clean record and all my contributions paid, I say it is right and proper that these friendly society officials should be allowed to sit down with the officials of the Ministry to hammer out a scheme to show that it could be done. Instead of that the Minister has all along said that he could not possibly do this or that or the other. We, that is the friendly societies, have sought, through the Minister, for consultation with his officials in order that the two sides could get down to it, and one could tell the other—as indeed they will tell the Minister—what it is proposed to do with his scheme for the transition period. However, I proceed with the memorandum:
If the Minister agrees to the above, the friendly societies will agree (1) That the above arrangements will give friendly societies full satisfaction in this matter; (2) to intimate through the Press that the friendly societies will regard the above arrangement as complying with the pledge given by the Labour Party to the friendly societies at the General Election.
Then follows a statement of the advantages:
'(1) a settlement of the present controversy will be effected to the satisfaction of all parties without the necessity for any amendment to the Bill; (2) The insured person would be enabled to make simultaneous payments of both State and voluntary sickness benefit; (3) The utilisation of one medical certificate for both State and voluntary sickness benefits could be effected.
As I said earlier, the friendly societies hoped that, at last, they had found the means whereby this controversy could be ended without dividing the House on the issue, and whereby Members of the House who were committed by a pledge would, ipso facto, have complied with the promises they gave. What it really means is this. The Minister was asked in the circumstances to allow the working out of a scheme between the officials of the two parties. I can say this, that the Minister said he would give a reply this morning. I am satisfied that this scheme has been properly looked into, and my regret, my very great regret, is that the amicable settlement for which I have sought all this time did not accrue. I was unfortunately told by my right hon. Friend the Minister that the further suggestions could not be accepted by the Government. [An HON. MEMBER


" Hear, hear."] My hon. Friend says "Hear, hear," but 8,000,000 people will not say "Hear, hear" Tomorrow morning. I should have thought that after all these overtures, and the sincerity attaching to this claim for inclusion in the scheme, the Minister would have cooperated with us in an endeavour to find a way out.
I shall not trouble the House to explain what hon. Members have already heard or have read themselves—namely, what the friendly societies have done for this nation. No one can deny the fact that they acted as the pioneers of insurance benefits in this country, and they want to go on. The friendly societies are afraid that with their exclusion under this Bill they will be seriously damaged and their lifetime curtailed. That is serious, having regard to the fact that this nation of ours, of which we are so proud, has always claimed credit for the thriftiness of its working folk. Some of us, 35 years ago, thought that the introduction of the National Health Insurance Act would have a serious reaction on voluntary insurance, but let me say, with a good deal of pride and satisfaction, that the National Health Insurance Act increased the membership of the voluntary societies by over 25 per cent. in two years. The reason was that the people became more thrifty and more insurance-minded. They saw the necessity of not depending on the 10s. a week. They saw the necessity of getting away from the Poor Law when they were sick, and they increased their membership of the friendly societies with that end in view. As it was good in 1912 to encourage thrift among the working classes of this country, so they ought not to be prevented from exercising it in 1946.

Mr. Kirkwood: We are not stopping them.

Mr. Goodrich: I want to say exactly how this will stop them. It will stop them because of the lack of contact between the members of voluntary societies and their families and the compulsory insurance. It was through compulsory insurance that the contact was made—it was the man on the doorstep, telling the people how they could improve their status through increased benefits from a voluntary source. That is what I say must go on in future. But take away from the voluntary societies the administration of the new scheme, and I and my colleagues

are afraid that it will be a serious blow not only to the friendly societies of this country but also to the whole thrift movement. I beg now that this House will seriously consider the ethics of the matter, and the right that this new Clause has to be supported because of the need in this country for the continuation of good fellowship and thrift and all they mean to the people we represent.

Mr. Speaker: I have decided that this new Clause and the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Wavertree (Mr. Raikes) to Clause 46, should be discussed at the same time. That Amendment relates to the approved societies and it could be discussed now, on the understanding of course that when we reach that stage, there will be, if desired, a Division upon it without discussion.

Mr. Goodrich: If we are to take the two together, will they be voted upon separately?

Mr. Speaker: The discussion on the two will be somewhat similar, but there will be two separate votes if that is the desire of the House.

Mr. G. Lang: I beg to second the Motion.
I do not desire at this stage to indulge in any repetition of the arguments which have been put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for North Hackney (Mr. Goodrich), but there are some things which need to be said, and need to be said very plainly, upon this new Clause. I am extremely sorry that this great and important Measure should be associated with this controversy. It is a Measure which is largely accepted by all Members. Its passing is an historic occasion, and I should have liked it to have gone through without any of this misunderstanding, which at this moment is by no means resolved. I believe emphatically in the wisdom of the retention of the friendly societies, because I believe that this Measure, however good and well designed, will lose a great deal of its value and much of its purpose, unless there is humanity in its administration.
I do not want to see any extension of the sort of thing which we too often see, of tired people going to unwanted places to see people who have no desire to see them. I do not want miniature White-halls in every town and city in the land.


I want personal and human contact. There must be a great many Members who have had much experience in social work, and they know perfectly well that the agent of a friendly society is much more than a collector of payments or a disburser of occasional benefits. He is a genial philosopher and friend in so many directions. It is quite right, as my hon. Friend has said, that all the time there has been an incentive to thrift. It will be a serious thing if that personal contact is lost. So often, when things are done through the State, there is delay. Those who have had dealings with the State in other directions will know how long we can be kept waiting. I am afraid that people will have to wait for cheques to be sent and for payments to be made. Without this personal contact, they may have to wait a considerable time.
Every social worker knows what will happen. In each town, at the end of the street, in the working class area, there is always someone with ready money, from whom, in time of need, people can get cash, often at exorbitant prices, and because of immediate necessity, these people will borrow a few pounds, and in consequence lose a great deal. Again and again that has been avoided by the personal work and self-sacrifice of members of the friendly societies. There is no doubt that they have done more than the work they were paid to do. They have given advice and assistance, and they do work which is outside the schedule of their employment, for which they receive no remuneration.
10.45 p.m.
Finally, a good deal has been said in this dispute about the question of pledges. I will make my own position perfectly clear. I gave a pledge, because I believed, as I still believe, in the value of the friendly societies. I met a deputation of these people, at a round-table conference one afternoon, from the three towns which I now have the honour to represent. We thrashed out the matter, and I gave my pledge. Again and again after that, as the Election campaign developed, at large meetings, people jumped up and said: "We are insurance agents and members of friendly societies. What will the candidate do, if elected?". My answer invariably was: "I have

already met your representatives and given my pledge. The pledge which I have given is in accordance with the policy of my party—you need not worry." [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members opposite were not quite so pleased when I said that then. At any rate, I did say it, and I meant it; and I hope that, as long as I remain in public life, a solemn pledge given will be redeemed to the best of my ability.
I do not legislate for any other man's conscience, and I will allow nobody else to legislate for mine. As long as I remain a Private Member of this House—a position which has great privileges, even if the House has perhaps unwisely parted with one or two—I am in a position of freedom. If I were a Member of the Government, I might say, "The Government—right or wrong ". I am glad that I am not in that position, because I think that, on this matter, the Government are wrong. I propose to take such steps as are necessary to vindicate the pledge which I have given and maintain my belief in the right of the people, who have given years of experience and service, to be used as far as they can be.
The time may come very soon when, in more than one direction, we shall be glad of the co-operation and experience of men and women of good will and of service. These are not days in which we can afford to throw that kind of thing on one side. I believe inhuman contact, and I believe in redeeming one's pledge. Although I am sorry that there should be any disagreement, and it would be no pleasure for me to find myself in the Lobby opposite to my friends—I should regret being in that position even for a few minutes—I shall have no hesitation, if this Clause goes to a Division, in supporting the Opposition and in maintaining what I believe to be the right decision for the country.

Mr. Maude: There are occasions, in this House, when it is really difficult to follow on the lines of the preceding speaker. May I be allowed to say, quite humbly, to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Lang), that we on this side of the House know that he spoke from his heart, that he meant what he said, and, when the Division comes—if, indeed, it has to come


to that sorry pass—we shall know exactly where we shall find him.
It is not inappropriate to quote from the observations of one who may one day be a great Prime Minister. I refer to the present Prime Minister. That remains to be seen. At any rate, in an age when, not lip service, but so much wholehearted tribute is paid to efficiency and science, it may have struck some hon. Members, as it did me, that there is much wisdom in the words of the right hon. Gentleman contained in a pamphlet, which, no doubt, we have all received. When, speaking from the heart, as he almost always does, he said:
 Science without conscience is the ruin of the spirit.
Despite the fact that to-night one is open to attacks on the ground that what one is saying is a Party matter—that is inevitable and I am prepared for it—is it not possible to deal moderately with such a matter as this without bitterness, and to see the arguments which have been advanced by the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, and by hon. Members upstairs, with the object of inducing others to break the pledge which they gave? Surely, that would not be time wasted, particularly if they are good arguments, but if they are bad arguments the proper thing to do is for those hon. Members who gave the pledge to honour their word.
It needs great power to induce the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde and others to break their word, because, in spite of the cynical atmosphere with which we are sometimes surrounded, possibly because of the lateness of the hour, this is really a thing of great importance. As the hon. Gentleman who moved this Motion said, this is a moment of supreme importance, because the direct effect will be to draw the attention of eight million people to the position. They will wonder whether, in fact, a Parliamentary election is not a dirty business, in which a private individual may go to a candidate and get a pledge, and afterwards may find that a Minister of the Crown has said that the promise made is of no effect because it was a promise given to an individual. If one finds that that is the argument advanced—and I propose to deal faithfully with the matter, otherwise it is futile and a waste of the time of the House—then there can be only one result, a dignified and sensible withdrawal—the same sort of confession and

admission as was made by the Prime Minister the other day when he came down to the House and said, "I should not have said that."That is leadership, but not so that which the right hon. Gentleman has done in Committee.
I also want to refer to helpful observations made by the Lord President of the Council and by the Lord Privy Seal. Both of them have earned the admiration of countless numbers of their fellow citizens, as well as of Members of this House, for their integrity and skill. The Lord President of the Council, in this House in 1943, said:
There will always be a lot of voluntary effort of one sort and another, voluntary effort, voluntary social service, voluntary public service and if it dies in this country British democracy is dead.
That was the Lord President of the Council, and, of course, he meant it. The Lord Privy Seal away in 1930, when he was Minister of Health, said in a speech at Blackpool:
 A real living partnership should be forged between Governmental machinery on the one hand and the machinery of the big voluntary movements on the other.
What, in fact, will be done if the "new Clause is accepted is that the chance will be given to make use of these voluntary organisations, which. have never worked for profit. No matter how much we like things that are for profit, we cannot help admiring these societies which the Lord President of the Council and the Lord Privy Seal were both led to praise. We want these things that work on a voluntary basis. It should be noticed that the new Clause is not a direction to the Minister; it is simply permissive. If it is accepted there will be a chance of using these voluntary organisations.
Let us examine the position and see what has happened. Let us take it stage by stage and see whether the facts have been put by the Minister, who is in a special position. The Minister is in a position that many people might like to be in tonight. He did not sign the paper, and so he stands in a different category from those who did. If we find that a lot of our friends are committed to something which may be rather disagreeable, it is a matter of honour that they should discharge their obligations. This is what honour means in this connection. In the constituencies a person may go to an hon. Member and say, "You gave a


promise that afternoon, and you have not kept your promise."

Mr. J. Griffiths: I gather that the hon. and learned Member intends to come to the advice I gave my friends. In the meantime, he is using a lot of paraphrases which purport to convey A: hat I said. I am prepared to stand by every word I said in Standing Committee, and I shall repeat that advice to my friends tomorrow.

Mr. Maude: Naturally the right hon. Gentleman may be going to do that tomorrow. I may also assure him that I do not propose to deal with this matter on a basis of paraphrases. That would be grossly unfair. What I propose to do is to deal with the actual words the Minister used. They are quite short, so there is no difficulty about it I shall show what the contents of the arguments are. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is going to urge them upon his friends tomorrow. I suppose he will be urging them not merely upon his friends, but upon every person who signed this pledge. He is appealing to the House and saying that this is a thoroughly bad Clause; he is appealing to everyone, not merely to his friends. When the Labour Party victory took place on 26th July, it was possible then to look back, as some of us did, to the pledges we had received The Minister—I will read the passage in due course, and I do not think he will find I am being unfair, or that I have been unfair so far—made complaint to his friends about the questionnaires in the Election. They are very tiresome. I remember a particular one, which no doubt other hon. Members received, asking whether I would agree to the extension of the protection of the Statute to cats in the same way as to dogs. There was a long discourse on the miseries of the cat, with which I sympathised. I read it, and as a young candidate I found myself in serious difficulties; so I know what the Minister means when he speaks about some of the questionnaires. But is it not true to say of the questionnaires that we were capable of dealing with them all? When the Election had taken place the Parliamentary Secretary was not in a different position from that of the Minister, except that his memory was at fault. I am not trying to be sarcastic about it. [HON. MEMBERS:

" Oh."] Perhaps hon. Members will listen to me for a moment. His memory was at fault and he has said so. I accept that. I will tell the House what I mean? The Parliamentary Secretary said he did not recollect the pledge he had signed.
11.0 p.m.
If he said it, we will accept it. That is the proper attitude. But if he says he forgot it, then, very well. But what eventually happened was this. His attention was drawn to the fact that it was eyident that something had been done which was very awkward. It was the Liberal Party who drew attention to the matter in very strong words, and, in the Second Reading Debate on 6th February, attention was drawn to the questionnaire. The hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) said that at the time of the General Election there were 199 hon. Members opposite who signed. Therefore, the allegation that their word had been pledged was perfectly clear. One waits, after such an allegation, to see why the pledge should not be carried out. Obviously, it was impossible to contemplate that there would be an apology. There has been no apology, and hon. Members who attended the proceedings upstairs say that the hon. Member for North Hendon (Mrs. Ayrton Gould) gave an explanation that a young gentleman—that is the description of him —had made a mistake in the Central Office. She believed it, and would not have said it unless it were so. But, if one looks at how she described the incident, he gets the impression that it was some incompetent youth who got the Labour Party policy wrong, and that is what she really believed. But there is something distressing about the argument.
This is what she said, speaking in Committee upstairs on 26th March:
I want to deal with what was said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Waver-tree (Mr. Raikes) about a body of opinion being ' ed up the garden.' I would like to refer to the directive to the Labour Party for a special reason. I feel rather sensitive about it, because for a number of years before the election I was the chairman of a social insurance committee of the Labour Party, and I knew party policy. Two directives were sent round. The first was simply a factual explanation of the position. The second one, in answer to a number of questions, unfortunately, because we were very short staffed at Transport House. and the secretariat was hideously overworked, was written by a not very experienced young man, and it got


through with a bit left out. [Interruption.] I am giving the whole truth, and if hon. Members do not believe it, I cannot help it, but I propose to give the truth."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, Standing Committee A, 26th March, 1946; C. 365.]
I propose to give the truth, and I must point out that an examination of the document would have revealed that at the bottom are two initials. It is not without significance that they are "M.P." That might, of course, mean that one had had a successful candidature, but they are the initials of Morgan Phillips who was not then, but is now, secretary of the Labour Party. It is difficult to believe that, in such circumstances, the Labour Party had made a mistake. There was not an overworked or inexperienced young man but somebody with experience who directed the candidates, who are now hon. Members of this House, in such a way as that, having read it—because they cannot all not have read it—they put their signatures to it, and their signatures are there still. That being so, as hon. Members will see if they look at the report of the Committee for 26th March, they will find that some of the Members of the Committee felt deeply disturbed about this matter. For instance, the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) spoke deeply and genuinely, just as we have heard the hon. Member who seconded this Motion speak deeply and genuinely, about the difficulty of not honouring his word, and he abstained from voting. Hon. Members opposite have been given that discretion tonight which one would expect as being in the highest tradition. They have been given the discretion to honour their pledge and to abstain in this Division. That is evidently so.

Mr. Nally: On a matter in which conscience is at stake, members of this Party have always had the right to abstain.

Mr. Maude: No doubt there are occasions on which without any penny revolver or anything like that an unwilling Member can be induced to keep out of the Lobby which he really wanted to enter. But surely, generally speaking, one's Party expects one to do very much what the Party feeling directs is necessary to govern the country. [An HON. MEMBER: "You should know."] I am afraid I do not know, never having been a member of a Government Party, but I think that is the principle. The matter

was brought to a head when the right hon. Gentleman the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) made his speech on the Second Reading. Personally, not being an expert in the particular subject, I try to listen, to speeches particularly, for instance, the speeches tonight of certain hon. Members who obviously knew what they were talking about, and I try to learn. One of the greatest administrators we have in the House is the Senior Burgess for Oxford University; that nobody will deny. When I read the right hon. Gentleman's speech and discovered he was satisfied that some scheme was workable, then I find it difficult not to commend that view to the 199 pledgers. Am I not right in saying—I am sure hon. Members on the other side will agree with me—that if there is one thing on which the Labour Party prides itself, and I think justly, it is knowledge of such affairs as the affairs of approved societies? Therefore, adding these two things together and thinking about it long before there was any question of this Clause I came to the conclusion that it was a reasonable thing, in all the circumstances, for the persons who had given this pledge to say "Now we have an argument here which makes it possible for us to honour this pledge. We have the Senior Burgess for Oxford University, we know about Sir William Beveridge, and that is ample."
May I turn now to the reasons that are given when the question arises of a breaking of the pledge? I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman is going to argue that there are two ways of leaving it open to the House: either to go straight to a Division, or to make speeches trying to get people who have pledged their word, not to stick to it. The arguments that were put forward for breaking the pledge were those of the Minister, and as he has asked me to do so, I will read to the House what he said. Before doing so, however; may I say that it is possible that those 8,000,000 persons in the country who are waiting tonight, as the hon. Member for North Hackney (Mr. Goodrich) said, and who take an interest in this matter, will be in a position to say this to hon. Members on both sides of the House. For it does not apply only to the Labour Party; it applies to hon. Members on this side as well. Those 8,000,000 people will look at those who do


not honour their pledge, and, remembering the day when we were elected—a day which seemed important to us, probably more important than it really was to each individual, for one seemed to get on a sort of pinnacle—

Mr. Medland: The hon. and learned Member was lucky.

Mr. Maude: I can assure the hon. Member that I am always lucky.

Mr. Medland: The hon. and learned Member was lucky on a minority vote.

Mr. Maude: It would be possible tonight to draw particular attention to the hon. Member for the Drake Division (Mr. Medland), because, having drawn attention to me and to himself, he is one who has already voted in the Standing Committee against his pledge. It will be possible for people to say of such hon. Members on both sides, thinking back to the day of the Election:
His promises were as he then was, mighty,
But his performance as he now is, nothing.

Mr. Medland: Might I inform the hon. and learned Member that I took the trouble to meet the whole council of representatives of the friendly societies, with my colleagues, and I put to them this question: Do you want me to keep my pledge, or do you want me to defeat the Labour Government? [Interruption] I will give the reply when I can be heard. The reply was, "We prefer to keep the Government."

Mr. Kirkwood: Come away, now, Hamlet.

Mr. Maude: What could have been more interesting than that? What could have been more illuminating? May we follow that out for a moment? I think I can best do so by reading what the Minister said in the Standing Committee on 26th May:
As to the pledge, the question of questionnaires at election time requires attention. It is becoming pressure politics of a kind which will destroy democracy in the end…
Why? If constituents want to write and ask one's opinion about cats, or mice, or treacle, or anything that they are interested in, why should it be an end to democracy? Hon. Members could, of course, take the opposite course and not answer them, but if they do answer them

and put their signature to the answers, I say it is not possible to admire a course of action such as the hon. Gentleman has just told us he is prepared to adopt in saying, "I do not honour my pledges because I prefer my Government more."The right hon. Gentleman went on:
 Members of Parliament daily receive circulars from all kinds of people, and many Members will not sign any of them. In my experience, this kind of thing has become worse 
It may have become worse. That is perfectly true. It may be a fearful nuisance, but hon. Members should not give their word unless they mean it. The right hon. Gentleman now goes on to a different defence:
The question of who shall administer these benefits was not an issue at tie election. Not single seat was won on it or lost on it.

An Hon. Member: That is perfectly true.

Mr. Maude: It would be utterly incapable of proof. I cannot help feeling that the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hackney knows that the people who work with him in the approved societies know their own people, and there are 8,000,000 of them. It is worth while conciliating them; otherwise hon. Members opposite would have put the thing in the wastepaper basket immediately. Of course, it was worth while. How many votes were gained by it nobody knows, but that the Labour Party were astonished by the size of their majority is past dispute. If the hon. Members will follow the argument a little further they will see the absurdity of it. If one is to be allowed to dishonour a pledge because one did not win one's seat by giving it, then what on earth is the good of it? If somebody comes along—it may be a poor man or a sick man—and says, "Look, if you are returned to Parliament will you do this? This is a serious matter. There are only a small group of us. We want to know. Are you our man? Are you for us or against us?"—what is one to say? If one is really honest is one to say, "My dear friend, am going to say Yes ' and I give you my hand on it, but if I come to the conclusion that as a result of doing that no seat was won, I do not propose to honour my word"? That is what it amounts to. It is fantastic. The right hon. Gentleman proceeds:
I did not give the pledge, and I have the largest majority of any Member in this


room, and that in a town which has as strong a friendly society and trade union tradition as any town in this country. The issue was not who shall pay the benefit, but what shall be the benefit. Social security was the issue. It was a live and vital issue.
I agree that was a great issue, but that is not the point. Surely hon. Members would agree with me it is not the point. The point is: Do hon. Members in the sanctity of their office, in signing a piece of paper, pledge their word, meaning it. I believe there are hon. Members sitting opposite who are not cynical, who are not completely wedded to this rather old-fashioned view, but who came here believing it was going to be a straight game and who were horrified when they discovered there was a division of this sort. I believe there are hon. Members—men from the North, from Scotland, men from Northumberland, Lancaster and York, Cornwall and Devon—who were horrified when they found what in fact had happened was that they had got just a scrap of paper. We have almost got to the end of the right hon. Gentleman's argument:
I know that Members have given the pledge. I have not given it. In my so years in Parliament and as a trade union officer before I came to this House, I gave undertakings. I sometimes failed and sometimes had to ask to be released from them. That is leadership. Leadership sometimes means being big enough to go back and say, I have made a mistake '.
Members will find themselves in the position of having got in at the Election, possibly on pledges, regarding which they have now to say "I cannot keep this promise."If you are the hon. Member for the Drake Division you do not go back and say "I am sorry "but rather you say "I prefer the Government to my word."It is fantastic. What is the use, having been elected, of saying to the persons to whom you have pledged your word "I am sorry; I have made a mistake. I propose in your absence, hoping that the thing will be forgotten, to go into the ' No ' Lobby tonight."They will not let you do that. They will remember it. The right hon. Gentleman then went on:
I knew that this pledge had been given by hon. Members. My attention was called to it when I made a statement in November. I looked at it again with every desire to help them and all like them in a difficult situation…My only way to help them is to do something which I know would be bad for the scheme and for insured workers and I am honestly convinced that they themselves would regret it in five years' time.

If I am right in that, the Lord President of the Council gave a promise that members could abstain because their consciences hurt them, in that the hon. Members who moved and seconded this believed in what they said, in that the Senior Member for Oxford University is a person of great experience and integrity and therefore his words have the greatest weight—if I am right in all this, what justification will the right hon. Gentleman the Minister have if tomorrow, after he has had time to think, or even possibly tonight, he comes down to the House and urges hon. Members to break their word? Finally the Minister went on to say:
I want to see one great unified service. I shall not ask hon. Members to act one way or the other.
Is he' saying "I am asking you not to go into the ' Aye ' Lobby "or" I am asking you not to go into the No ' Lobby." Anyway he concludes:
 Each one has to make up his own mind. …I believe it would be worth their while to put the matter of this undertaking fairly and squarely to their constituencies.
How many Members have, in fact, taken his advice and gone back to their constituencies to talk to them about this pledge? We do know that one has done so, and we know what his attitude is. We know that the Parliamentary Secretary has done so, at a public meeting attended by some 200 to 250 which passed a resolution adverse to him.

Mr. Lindgren: I am sure the hon. and learned Member does not wish to mislead the House. The Parliamentary Secretary did attend a meeting which was attended by well over 1,000 people and a resolution of confidence was carried in him. Another meeting was held by the friendly societies, at which he was not present, but at which about 200 people were present, and when the vote was taken 67 voted against, and three for. The remainder abstained.

Mr. Maude: The point is that the resolution was against him. He was asked to go and debate the matter with Sir William Beveridge, and agreed to do it, but asked that it should not be until after the Recess. That, of course, was no use. Perhaps other hon. Members will take the Minister's advice—

Mr. Yates (Birmingham, Ladymoor): On a point of Order. What has this to do with the new Clause under discussion?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member appears to me to be in Order.

Mr. Maude: Whether the advice of the Minister has or has not been taken, how on earth can hon. Members be released from pledges so given? Of course they cannot. The first person to do that would have been the hon. Gentleman who seconded the new Clause; if he had known he could really be released, I have no doubt he would have tried. My suspicion, and the suspicion of my hon. Friends, is that this scheme is workable, but that the right hon. Gentleman has been convinced— and quite honestly convinced— by the civil servants. If that were not so is it conceivably possible that the Labour Party, with all its great administrative experience of working these non-profit-making organisations over many years, putting in untiring work on their behalf, should not have found out long ago that it was impossible administratively? Why should not that be so? Why is it only at the eleventh hour?
This is the way the matter was put to them by the Minister upstairs:
 Very few pledged themelves to their constituency on this matter. They pledged themselves to a private deputation.
Is there a difference between pledging your word to some man or woman in your constituency in a house, and pledging it on the platform or in an election address? If you pass your word and say, "Yes, I will do that," Is there a difference between doing it in a private room, and doing it in public? I think there may be, in the minds of some— perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary, because surely otherwise how could he have forgotten, which he obviously did? That must be the explanation—that he thinks there is a difference between pledging your word to a group, perhaps a society for the protection of cats or dogs, or the approved societies, one of the greatest and noblest organisations in Great Britain, and pledging it publicly to his constituency. He had forgotten about it, because it was not done publicly.
The final words of the hon. Member were:
I believe it would be worth their while to put this matter fairly and squarely to their constituencies, and to argue that, in the interests of this new scheme, and in view of the fact that the people want real social security, we are now beginning a new chapter, and we

must not repeat the mistakes of the past. Do not let us break up the unity of this Scheme. Let us keep it as one unified Scheme. That is my honest advice to every Member of this Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 26th March, 1946, C. 394–396.]
If that is done, will it not be the proper criticism of the country to say, "Look out, they do not keep their word "? They have got the shackles of the Juggernaut car upon them; the machine has in fact gripped them, although they have made a disclaimer. If in fact they go into the wrong Lobby and vote against this new Clause, it will be possible to use the old quotation, and never most justly:
The shackles of an old love straitened him,
His honour rooted in dishonour stood,
And faith, unfaithful, kept him falsely true.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Logan: I have listened with the deepest attention to the mover and seconder of this new Clause and I commiserate with both of them, in regard to the attitude they have adopted. I have listened also to the hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Mr. Maude) and I must say that, as an actor, he has well fulfilled his par: tonight.

Mr. Maude: It is a very honourable occupation.

Mr. Logan: I am fully aware of that. He has spoken "Trippingly on the tongue "—it has been well done—but what relevance had it to the subject under discussion? [Laughter.] I have heard that laughter many times before, but we are dealing here with a matter of some importance, and because it is of some importance I rise now for the first time in this present Parliament after having been 17 years with the House. I have a right to speak because I have been for 34 years general secretary of an approved society, and 40 years a member of a friendly society. These credentials are justification enough for me to say to the House that at least I know my subject. I was amused when the mover of the new Clause said that for 34 years he was on a board connected with approved societies. I know that there are many dummies on boards, but in executive work you have to be more than a dummy—you have to understand your subject. Therefore, knowing the Act from A to Z, I intrude in this Debate


without apologies. It is a remarkable fact that the valuable work of all the other approved societies and the trade unions is not to be taken into consideration. If one says, "Place all friendly societies in a proper position, and then all will be right," applause goes up from the other side. The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) goes frantic. I never saw such contortions in all my life. When the new Clause was moved against us, it was very amusing to see the antics of the Noble Lord.

Earl Winterton: Listening to the speech of the hon. Member, I am in danger of dying of boredom.

Mr. Logan: Although I am amused, I am also sorry. I would ask the Noble Lord, for the sake of this great Assembly and its traditions, to keep quiet and to sit and listen. The Act of 1912 is about to go, and we are seeing an evolution in the theory of insurance and economics, the like of which the world has never seen before. That being so, I cannot for the life of me understand the comments of the hon. and learned Member for Exeter on the theme, "You pledged your word." I have taken many pledges in my time, and some of them have been good and some of them have been bad, but when I was being judged on management of affairs, I was judged in regard to the policy I adopted and whether it was a success or not. I would say to both sides of the House: "Get rid of this childishness, and get down to hard matters of fact." Let Members, on the opposite side, consider what it is that we are attempting to do in this Bill. Am I to take it that right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite do not want this Bill? Do they want stagnation and revolution, which are likely to come, if we do not go along in progressive style? There is sanity in the things that I am saving to you; but why speak to the insane?
Have hon. Members thought of the anomalies that are being wiped out under this Bill? I would ask what some hon. Members in this House are trying to do away with by this Bill. They are trying to wipe out the greatest grievances which our people have had to suffer. The question of the valuation of societies has been brought up on the matter of what benefits can be given: but half the population who are insured today receive no additional benefits from any of the societies to

which they belong. The greatest tragedy of our age has been the fact that, although paying contributions, they have never been able to receive the benefits that those in a better position in life have been able to get. Those in the industrial areas, those at the dockside, those who went to build up the nation in fields of commerce or industry were in such a deplorable condition that never were they able to get additional benefits. But the people in easy jobs were always able to get additional benefits. The Act was intended for those in want, for those who could not provide the necessities of life for themselves; and from 1912 until now—34 years—you have gone along with that anomoly, and only tonight do you speak of the pledge and the broken word. You have been traitors—all of the successive Governments have been traitors—in not making an equalisation of benefits.

Mr. E. P. Smith: On a point of Order. Were you a traitor, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I think that the hon. Member had recovered himself, and, therefore, I did not make any comment.

Mr. Logan: I do not know that it shows any sign of intelligence that you are grinning.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I beg to inform the hon. Member that I am not grinning.

Mr. Logan: I want to point out to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—to the intelligence of the House—something in reference to this Bill. I want the House to consider, not broken pledges, or any lapse on toe part of any Minister, but the purpose for which we meet in the British Houses of Parliament. We meet here to decide on legislation, and if the Cabinet has 30 decided that, as regards this Bill, none of the approved societies will be able, or will be allowed, to operate, what they say is that they are bringing in a Measure of national importance that will get rid of the anomalies, and not only of the friendly societies and approved societies, and will give an opportunity such as never before existed for the poor to get better treatment. Because of that, although I am a member of an approved society and its general secretary, and although I have been 40 years in the friendly society movement, T am fully convinced that the best


thing that can be done in the interests of the people is to get rid of the anomalies.
May I point out that in the place in which I live 90 per cent. of the men went to the war? Many of them were torpedoed six and seven times. Yet when they applied to their approved societies not one of them could get additional benefits. That meant that none of them was able to get convalescent treatment; none could get extra medical treatment in convalescent homes, none could get optical or dental treatment and none could get the normal amount allowed under the Act. Yet other societies that were better off, were able to give the cash benefits and all the other additional benefits under the Act. I understand that all these anomalies will be wiped out, under the Bill. Where is there a Member in this House who would dare to say, if we are going to wipe out the approved societies, which are trade union bodies, that recognition should be given and preferential treatment allowed to a particular class mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Exeter I cannot understand that at all. This will be a system set up within a national system. Let me read to the House what is to be done. I hope the hon. and learned Member for Exeter, who was so tragic a short time ago, and who is able to give us Shakespearean quotations, will be able to understand the merits of this arrangement with the friendly societies. The part I want to read to the House is:
 Subject to prescribed conditions, the Minister may make an arrangement with any friendly society "—
although it is a national system—
 whereby in respect of any class of benefit covered by the arrangement, claims to benefit by or in respect of any insured person being a member of such society, shall be made to the society 
and so forth. There is so much of it one gets all mixed up. Then we get this provision:
 Arrangements may be made under this section to relate to sickness benefit, maternity benefit, widows' allowance and death grant.
We are going to have a national service set up, and what is wanted by hon. Members opposite is that the approved societies should be thrown out and a place found for the friendly societies. I have never heard anything so illogical in my life. I am convinced that if the Government gave in on this matter they would be

making the greatest mistake not in regard to 8,000,000 people—which is fantastic; 4,500,000 would he nearer the mark—but in regard to 18,000,000 or 20,000,000 outside, who will be pleased when the Government remove the anomalies that now beset the scheme, and so bring into the homes of our workers those benefits that the people so sadly need, and which the better classes are able to enjoy.

Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Whiteley.]

Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — CABLE AND WIRELESS BILL

Mr. Alexander Anderson, Mr. Benson, Mr. Donovan and Mr. Manningham-Buller nominated Members of the Select Committee on the Cable and Wireless Bill.—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

Orders of the Day — CUCUMBERS ORDER.

11.45 p.m.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I beg to move,
That the Cucumbers Order, 1946 (S.R. &amp; O., 1946, No. 613), dated 25th April, 1946, a copy of which was presented on 30th April, he annulled.
When dealing with these Orders relative to the distribution of food in this country, hon. Members on this side of the House have regard to two points. The first is whether the Order permits of adequate stocks being maintained in this country; and the second is whether the Order permits of adequate distribution being made so that every section of the community shall have a fair chance of purchasing its proper share.

Sir Wavell Wakefield: On a point of Order. Is anyone going to reply from the Government benches who is capable of replying to this Motion?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I think the hon. Member had better wait a little longer.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): Even at this late hour.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: As far as the question of adequate stocks is concerned, we on this side of the House feel that despite all the efforts of the present Government, we still have adequate


stocks, and that, thanks to the foresight of the predecessors of the present Government, they are not at present in the position of having to be censured from this side of the House. On the question of adequate distribution, the Government have already shown themselves incapable of accepting what I might call the elementary facts. In this Order they have gone still further in their sin, and have produced something which cannot hope to produce adequate distribution and ensure that every member of the community will receive his proper share of the goods to be rationed under this Order. We have had previous Debates which were similar to this. On all occasions the Ministry of Food have said that their chief concern is to be considered as a Ministry for the consumer. If that means anything, it must mean that they are prepared to guarantee that every member of the British public, irrespective of locality or purchasing power, shall have an equal chance to get whatever commodity is being rationed. Yet under this Order we have a system whereby that principle must be defeated from the very start. From the principles laid out in the Schedule, in what is called Part 7, Table "A," It must ensue that no one, unless he is in the immediate vicinity of wherever cucumbers happen to be grown, will be able to get any cucumbers at all. Column five lays down what may be added to the wholesale prices on allocation to retail, and it is ridiculous to say that that price has sufficient regard to the possible contingencies which may arise.
This Order applies to home grown cucumbers. Home grown cucumbers cover such vastly different areas as the Channel Islands and Hampshire. I believe the Home Secretary is to answer this Debate. He is asking this House to believe that it is possible to produce and market cucumbers from the Channel Islands and from Hampshire at exactly the same prices. He is asking us to believe that cucumbers grow for the most part in the Southern districts of this country, and can be transported to the Northern parts at the same price as that at which they can be sold in London and the South. That is quite fantastic because of differentiations in price—owing to mileage owing to transport costs. Let us assume for a moment the Ministry of Food's statement that they are a Ministry

for the consumer, that they are, in fact, a Ministry for the producer. Producers for the most part are concentrated in relatively small areas around London, the South-West, and parts of the Midlands, and they are asked to accept the fact that they will receive a standard price for their commodities. That price is assured, and there can be on alteration. The wholesaler is faced with a glut of the commodity so that he cannot take it. The producer has a certain amount to sell, arid he can sell it to the wholesaler at a reduced price, at a loss to himself, or he can let it go to waste.
On all sides of the House we must agree that no sooner does the Ministry of Food produce an Order relative to any foodstuff, than that foodstuff disappears from the shops. The Minister in his folly or wisdom—call it what you wish—produces a statement laying down standard or fixed prices, which renders it impossible for the producer to produce, or the consumer to consume. We on this side of the House have the greatest desire to see that in these difficult times of shortage, foodstuffs, particularly fresh vegetables, are produced and sold so as to ensure the widest distribution. We ask the Ministry of Food to ensure that this is done. An Order such as this dealing with a vegetable which, while not essential, could produce a great many benefits to the ordinary housewife, should be such as to encourage the producer to produce to the maximum. We also urge that the wholesaler should be encouraged to accept that produce. At the moment, however, the producer is penalised, the wholesaler is penalised, and the consumer gets nothing at all.

11.53 p.m.

Mr. Spence: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, before I second this Order, may I ask for your guidance? I have to put a number of technical points to the Ministry of Food, and I should like to have guidance on the point as to whom I am to address.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: On a point of Order. May I ask if there is anybody qualified to answer the technical points which have been and will be raised?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The remarks should he addressed to the Chair. I understand the points will be answered.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In view of the great many questions which have been asked, may I request you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to consider a Motion for the Adjournment of the House as there is no Minister present to answer them?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot accept that at the moment. I understand that steps have been taken to secure the attendance of the Minister.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: How much latitude are we to give the Government?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Chair cannot give any such indication. The Debate should proceed.

11.55 p.m.

Mr. Spence: I beg to second the Motion.
I do so on the same grounds of complaint which I have made in recent Prayers for the annulment of similar Orders, all of which have been unsucessful. The substance of my complaint is that there is insufficient allowances to meet the carriage of cucumbers from the grower to the consumer. That is the main burden of my objection, and I should like to voice it in relation to the particular background of the constituency which I represent, which is in the North of Scotland. I want to show what happens when we try at this time of the year in a place like Aberdeen to get a cucumber. The first hand wholesale price in London is 60s. and the carriage from the grower—at the present time cucumbers mainly come from the South and the Channel Islands—is 3s. 6d. There are then the buyers' charges, London porterage, and, finally, a passenger train freight from London to Aberdeen, since goods trains are too slow. There is thus a net loss of somewhere over 12s. per cwt. on the prices that are permitted at the present time. The result is that we do not see cucumbers except at the time of the year when they can be grown locally. Does the Minister desire to limit the supply to the one month when we can grow them locally without using heat?
I would like to refer to a point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend who moved the annulment, namely, the effect on the grower. With this low carriage allowance distribution is restricted and you get local gluts. When the carriage allowance is not sufficient to move them to available markets, the price is depressed to the grower until he has to accept a

price sufficiently below the normal selling price which will subsidise the cost of carriage. As my right hon. Friend will know, that has taken place recently, in connection with spring cabbage. That does not help the grower, and these Orders should be fair to the grower, the distributor, and the consumer. If it is a good Order it should work that way. As the Minister himself is here—and I say this without any disrespect to the Parliamentary Secretary who has answered us on every occasion hitherto—I do wish to put it to him that these Orders are coming out again and again with the same objection in them, and with the same bone of contention, which causes these Prayers for annulment. I suggest that it is due to bad advice from the Department concerned. The Minister must take his advice, naturally, from the Department that looks after the distribution of each particular variety of food all over the country. Naturally he cannot look into the small details of every Order about this or that commodity, but I do suggest, with all sincerity, that the advice he has been receiving on this matter has not been good advice.
I hope that the Minister will look into the whole question himself, and that he will pay heed to the communications that have been sent from his divisional food officers in the North, which I know bear out the burden of the many Prayers on which I have spoken in the House in this connection. I hope also that the right hon. Gentleman will pay heed to the recommendations of the distribution committees on which the Ministry of Food have to rely for advice on the interests of the consumers. In the course of previous replies on the main question of levelling prices all over the country, the Parliamentary Secretary has said again and again that it is the policy of the Ministry of Food to meet the consumers' needs. She has said that the Ministry want to level the price all over the country. That is the answer we have had every time, but I have been looking up some of the Orders that have been going through, and I want to draw the Minister's attention to—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member may not refer to Debates on other Orders. We are now dealing with a specific Order, and he must confine his remarks to that Order.

Mr. Spence: This Order has only one price for the whole country, whereas in similar Orders referring to tomatoes and plums there were different prices. In the case of tomatoes, there were three prices, and in the case of plums four prices, and in some cases five prices. I suggest that there should not be any discrimination between one and another ingredient of a salad. What is sauce for the tomato should be mayonnaise for the cucumber. The same consideration should he given to cucumbers as is given to the other vegetables I have mentioned.

Wing-Commander Millington: May I ask the hon. Member whether, in his part of the country, they have plums together with cucumbers?

Mr. Spence: I may have spoken rather fast, but I do not put plums in my salad. They were an illustration.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member must bear in mind that the Order deals with cucumbers.

Mr. Spence: I now beg to direct the Minister's attention to one particular part of the price schedule; that is the part which deals with the question of the agent's charge. It will be found, in column 2, that the agent's commission is assured at 4s. per hundredweight, and the wholesaler gets only 3s. 6d. a hundredweight profit and only 3s. 6d. a hundred weight allowance. I suggest very strongly that this indicates who has the ear of the Department concerned. I suggest that because it is clear in the Order. I want to refer to one other matter, and that is that in previous Debates, the Parliamentary Secretary—

Mr. Collins: I am sure the hon. Member would not want to mislead the House. He must know that the wholesaler is entitled to receive the whole margin of 7s. 6d. and that it is very rarely that the agent's commission is paid at all.

Mr. Spence: The official price to the grower is 56s., the amount of the commission is 4s., making 60s., and the wholesale price is 63s. 6d., leaving a margin to the wholesaler of 3s. 6d., with a carriage recovery of 3s. 6d., where such carriage is 3s. 6d. The actual carriage cost can be covered up to that amount, but not beyond it. I therefore maintain that my statement that the profit to the wholesaler is 3s. 6d. a hundredweight is correct.
I come now to the question of the remarks that have been made in Debates on previous Prayers, regarding the source of the information which I have in this matter. In the Debate last week, the Parliamentary Secretary referred to the fact that I got my information from the trade. I wish to tell the House that I have gone into this matter on account of the weight of opinion in my constituency, and naturally, when I wanted information, I went to the trade. They were the people who knew what was happening. I suggest that to cast doubt and suspicion upon the source of my information indicates that the defence must be very weak.
Finally, in asking the Minister to look into this matter himself, I want to mention, that the chief of the department for soft fruits, who is adviser on these matters recently made a speech at a trade dinner in which he criticised the fact that these Prayers were being put down in the House to raise the question of carriage, and he suggested that they would not he a fruitful way for the trade to get the question considered. I suggest that when a civil servant indicates to the trade, who happen to come under his orbit of command, that they should not go to Parliament to get these matters put right, when the only way of altering an S.R. and O. is by a Prayer against it, it shows that we have come right under the heel of bureaucracy, and that matters have gone much further than they would have gone if the Minister had been watching this matter. I hope the Minister will give an assurance that he will look into the matter himself and investigate it from the point of view of the people in the North and in the more outlying districts, who do suffer real hardship, despite all that has been said to the contrary.

12.8 a.m.

The Minister of Food (Sir Benjamin Smith): These Prayers appear to be a weekly event now. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nightly."] They have been weekly so far. One does not object to any Member of Parliament taking full advantage of the Rules of the House that permit discussions of this character. Why are we asked to annul this Order? First, because, Scotland is not likely to get anything, according to the statements made, and second, because the transport costs are not sufficient to ensure Scotland getting anything. What are the facts?

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Will the Minister address himself to one or two of the arguments that I advanced?

Sir B. Smith: Before the war, the amount of cucumbers grown under glass was approximately 21,000 tons, and there was an unknown quantity of ridge cucumbers grown in the open. I have not the figures for them. During the war, deliberately and as a policy, under a cropping Order, cucumbers were not grown under glass. They were eliminated in favour of what was believed to be—and I believed it to be true—the much more nutritious commodity, tomatoes. That cropping Order was rescinded last autumn. This year we expect to get under glass 4,000 tons, and about 6,000 tons of ridge cucumbers. On top of this, we hope to import from Holland about 5,000 tons, so that the total will be approximately 15,000 tons. It will average something like a quarter of a pound per family for the whole country.
Therefore, it is impossible for me to plan a nation wide distribution of such a limited quantity of cucumbers. In the main the cucumber like many eggs, will be consumed in the districts where they are grown and districts adjacent thereto. I have tried to meet the position as fairly as I could. I have fixed the price to the grower or importer. I have fixed a maximum price with the wholesaler and retailer, plus allowances from farm or quayside to the wholesaler's premises and, finally, a maximum retail price to the public. I have not attempted to secure a nation wide distribution to all parts of the United Kingdom by a variation in the allowances for transport costs. Had I done so there would as a consequence have been differing retail prices in every district in the country and there would be different voices heard in resentment of this. I thought it wise to put a charge of 3s. 6d. covering the whole country.
How is Scotland going to be injured by that? There are imported cucumbers coming in almost daily to London. There are weekly boats running to Hull and to Leith where the cost to the hon. Member's constituents is 1s. 7d. and not 3s. 6d.; so people have a much better chance of getting imported cucumbers in the more long distant hauls. The cost is Is. 7d. My next point is that were I to do as suggested I should have different margins for every grower, every whole-

saler and every retailer. In dealing with an article which is in such short supply this year, it would be well nigh impossible to get an effective range of prices covering the whole country. I therefore suggest that I have tried to deal with a supply that is limited and to get the most effective distribution in the country having regard to the fact that the imported cucumbers will serve Scotland, the East Coast and London, and that the remaining supplies will, more or less, cover the whole country. I hope everybody will, more or less, get a fair share of the cucumbers that are available.

12.13 a.m.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: If we were only thinking in terms of distribution on paper the Minister would have made out a case; but we were not dealing with a paper problem of distribution at all. We are dealing with two problems. The first is whether the consumer is to get the cucumber which he wants; the second is whether the grower who has been encouraged this year to grow cucumbers will get a reasonable price. My opinion in this matter is balanced on both those aspects—the problem of the grower and of the consumer. I would remind hon. Members of the grower's position in this matter. As the Minister said, during the war years the growers of cucumbers under glass were forbidden to grow them and they grew tomatoes which were considered to be very valuable food. What is the position now? Quite rightly, the Minister is encouraging the importation of tomatoes, and that importation is driving those who during the war grew tomatoes to the growing of cucumbers. The moment they have grown their cucumbers, the Minister comes down and tells them that it is impossible for them to distribute them over a wider area than that prescribed. As he admitted, he does not care if they do not go beyond a certain area. I do not think I am misrepresenting him.
What is to happen then? Cucumbers cannot be put in cold storage, and sometimes gluts will arise; when they will become unsaleable within the area at the fixed price; they cannot be exported outside. Is that fair treatment for the growers? Would it not have been possible for the Minister to have told the House that he would reconsider the matter in view of the arguments which have been used, to see whether consumers over a


wide area could not have the opportunity to buy cucumbers, so that this would not be a vague paper Order which means nothing, but something which is real? I have always disliked attacking the Minister of Food in this House. I think that he has one of the most sticky jobs. I do not attack him personally. I know some of the problems which he is up against. One of the most serious problems is the lack of skilled advice which is available to him in these days in his Ministry. The picture is very different from what it was a few months ago.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member has wandered considerably from the Order, which deals with cucumbers.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: With the greatest respect, I think that this matter is closely related to cucumbers.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member had better resume his speech on the Order.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I apologise it my remarks were misunderstood. I am making no reflection on the personnel of the Ministry who come under the command of the Minister. I am attempting to point out that in drafting an Order on a highly technical subject, such as the disposal of cucumbers grown in market gardens, you need a very deep knowledge. I know that the Minister and his advisers are doing their best in the matter.
I have the greatest possible sympathy for the Minister and his advisers, but I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at this Order again. I can assure him that this Prayer has not been arranged to make trouble — [Interruption] — Hon. Members opposite always assume when a Private Member uses the rights which are his when he comes to the House, that he is doing so to make trouble—very far from it; he is using them in order to maintain the rights of Parliament and freedom for the people of this country. Jeers on this matter are ill placed. I would seriously ask the Minister to look at this matter again. It is not so simple as the Order pretends. It will do damage to the growers, and it will harm the consumers. There is no exaggeration in that statement. I hope that not merely will the right hon. Gentleman look at it again, but that he will examine the whole system of disposal.

12.18 a.m.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: I am sorry that the Minister came in late to this Debate and did not hear the opening speech, and that he rose so quickly to reply without hearing the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing), and the speeches of one or two other Members who, I believe, wish to contribute to the Debate. I wish to ask only one question. If the Minister will refer to Section 9, paragraph (2) of this Order, I would ask why no person shall buy or sell cucumbers mixed with any other fruit. We treat these Orders as serious Orders presented by a serious Ministry. We feel that an Order of this nature should be a serious Order. I am sure that the House will give the Minister leave to speak again to answer this question.

12.21 a.m.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Before the Minister replies to that question, I should like, if I may, to ask one or two questions. He has said the whole time, that he is a "consumers' Ministry." How can he reconcile that with what he has said tonight? Does he pretend to be some selective consumers' Ministry? Does he pretend that he ought to judge between this and that housewife? If so, how does he do it? Does he consider that, because one happens to be lucky enough to live within ten miles of a cucumber growing district, one is to have a cucumber; or does he consider that because one lives in the Northern parts, which seem to vex him so much, one should never have a cucumber? Is that what he calls being a "Consumers' Ministry," and what he calls "free, adequate and equitable distribution" To housewives of this country? We have been privileged to see him many times on the films and other places, telling people of his magnificent efforts. Is this one of them?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I fail to see how this Order has anything to do with the Minister being on the films.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The Minister has said on the films that he is ensuring equitable distribution. He must wish to encourage producers to ensure the maximum amount of food. How is he going to do that under this Order, which is literally something to discourage anybody from growing cucumbers? Any pro-


ducer knows that if he produces cucumbers he cannot sell them, because if he is in one of the market garden areas he is going to be faced with a glut, and if he is not—The Minister laughs. He should go and look at the market garden areas, and he could, perhaps, though this would be rash, grow a cucumber himself, and, perhaps—a still rasher effort—he could try to sell it under his own Order; and then he might understand, to some extent, some of the difficulties, The thing which we, on this side of the House, have against him is that he comes to the House late at night and says: "This is a weekly occurrence."It is far more important to us in this House that something should be done, even with a humble thing like the cucumber and so try to help the growth of food, than to come back flushed from America and announce that a further 200,000 tons of wheat have been given away. What we on this side of the House want to try to do is to get some sensible method of production and of wholesale and retail selling that will ensure that the things we can produce in this country are so distributed by the retailer and the wholesaler that every man and woman will get his or her fair share of the produce.

12.25 a.m.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: This, I think, is the third Prayer of this nature that we on these Benches have felt compelled to bring before the House. Hon. Members opposite, if I may say so, are not really in the long run going to gain anything by ill manners.

Mr. Shurmer: We do not forget the hungry 'twenties when the food which should have been for the people was being destroyed. Hon. Members opposite have no thought for the working classes.

Mr. Hudson: If hon. Members want to stay here a much longer period that is all right with me. If I may say so, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food would be well advised, instead of not answering the questions asked by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre), to have expressed some regret for not having been in his place when the Debate started. The objection we have to these Orders is that they indicate on the part of the right hon. Gentleman and his Department a com-

plete failure to carry out the policy that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food on two occasions announced, namely, that his Department was a consumers' Ministry. The right hon. Gentleman referred in this case to cucumbers, and he said—

Sir B. Smith: The Order refers to cucumbers.

Mr. Hudson: Yes, the Order refers to cucumbers. He said that during the war the growing of cucumbers was drastically restricted. I remember being responsible myself for the action, and I remember justifying it on the grounds that a cucumber was said to be the most expensive kind of water. I am quite sure that the housewife, wherever she is, is glad to see the right hon. Gentleman give this diversity. He has cut down beer and the water in beer, but he has now substituted the water in the cucumber. We are indeed grateful for small mercies. Is there any reason why, as he has got 15,000 tons, because of his failure to cut the country up into small enough areas, large numbers of people should be deprived of being able to enjoy any of these 15,000 tons? He said that he was afraid of having different prices in different parts of the country, and if he adopted a policy resulting in different prices in different parts of the country voices would be raised in protest. It is a fact that many of these Orders do provide for a different price in different parts of the country.
The right hon. Gentleman adduced as a second argument the fact that if he had different prices he would have to give different retail margins; and he seemed to think that the giving of a separate retail margin was something wrong in itself, and something which inevitably followed from different prices. But is that a fact? Will the right hon. Gentleman deny that there are a number of articles governed by Orders of this kind where there are different prices in different parts of the country, and where there is no difference in the retail margin? He knows perfectly well that that is so. He knows that there are numerous cases where he has divided the country up, not as in this Order, into two parts, but into three, four, five and up to nine different parts; and where, in order to secure an equitable distribution of a limited amount of supplies, it has been essential to take account of the fact that there are differences in the cost of


railway transport between the source of origin of a particular foodstuff and the market.
I hope you will allow me, Sir, merely as an illustration of what I am saying, to quote a couple of cases from Orders made before this House quite recently. I will not go into their merits: I merely quote them as showing that what we ask should be done in the case of cucumbers has been done in numerous other cases without any of the dreadful consequences which the right hon. Gentleman says will follow. If hon. Members will look at the Order dealing with plums, they will find that Scotland is cut up into two parts. The whole of the United Kingdom is not divided merely into two as here, but differentiation is made inside Scotland. It will be found that area four includes the following areas of Scotland, namely, the counties of Argyll, Perth, Angus, Kincardine, Moray and so forth; and area two includes Scotland other than the areas included in area four. If that can be done in one matter, why not in another? The obvious answer is that it is merely lack of convenience or lack of trouble on the part of the right hon. Gentleman and his Department.
Then the right hon. Gentleman said there must not be different prices. Again, merely for illustration, let me quote two examples of different prices. Again I take plums. Hon. Members will find that in area two in Scotland the maximum retail price is 5½., and in area four, the maximum retail price is 6d. So in fact, by the right hon. Gentleman's own action, he is doing what he says would be dreadful and against public policy in another case. In order to disprove the allegation that differential prices arise out of differential retail margins, let me quote from the same table, where we find the maximum price of sale by the wholesaler is 28s. 7d. in either case, but the maximum price on a sale by a secondary wholesaler is 32s. 1d. in both cases; but the maximum addition for transport in one case, in area two, is 5s. 10d. and in area four a further 12s. 10d. So the House will see that there is not a vestige of truth in the allegation or suggestion put forward in defence of this suggestion that we must not have differential prices because they are bad. We have got them. The secondary argument is that if there are differential prices, there must be differential margins for the retailers.

There is, in fact, allowed a different margin in one area from that in another to cover cost of transport.
If it can be done with one article, I suggest that if the right hon. Gentleman really told his Department to produce an equitable Order for the supply of cucumbers to allow everybody to buy them, there would be no difficulty at all. It might mean an extra table or an extra column in these tables, but it would Toe feasible. As it is, we shall have to go on and keep the House up in order that we may get the right hon. Gentleman to see our point of view. I hope he will take the Order back and concede our suggestion.

Mr. E. P. Smith: In view of the fact that the word cucumber suggests green salads, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that there are many cases of lettuces—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: They cannot be discussed on this Order.

12.37 a.m.

Sir Wavell Wakefield: Are we not going to have a reply from the Minister on all these points of great substance which have been raised? There have been very cogent arguments used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) who has given examples showing that this equitable distribution of cucumbers could be carried out. Is it fair to the House and to the country that the Minister of Food should make no effort to secure nation wide distribution? We on this side of the House have shown how nation wide distribution can be obtained. We have shown by this Order on cucumbers, as we have shown with previous Orders, that the Ministry of Food is not being run in an efficient and satisfactory way. This Prayer is again a test of what is happening in the right hon. Gentleman's Department. He has a chance to answer all the points we have made, but he says nothing.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is in grave danger of repetition.

Sir W. Wakefield: I will avoid repeating myself. I only make these points because I think that the House is entitled, in fact the country is entitled, to have a


reply to the points—the technical points—which have been made.

Sir John Mellor: I think the right hon. Gentleman has been amazingly discourteous to the House tonight. First, he did not arrive in the Chamber until after the mover had sat down, and the mover rose to put certain specific questions. The right hon. Gentleman is asked to answer these points, yet not only has he not apologised for arriving a quarter of an hour late, but his conduct in not replying is unworthy.

Mr. Hollis: Is it not a fact that the Minister explicitly promised my hon. Friend that if he repeated his questions he would answer them? My hon. Friend did repeat his questions; therefore he is entitled to expect an answer.

Question put,
That the Cucumbers Order, 1946 (S.R. &amp; O., 1946, No. 613), dated 25th April. 1946, a copy of which was presented on 3oth April, be annulled.

The House divided: Ayes, 37; Noes, 154.

Division No. 181]
AYES.
[12.40 a.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Aitken, Hon. Max.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Studholme, H. G.


Birch, Nigel
Marples, A. E.
Sutcliffe, H.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Mellor, Sir J.
Teeling, William


Challen, C.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Wakefield, Sir W W.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Orr-Ewing, l. L.
Walker-Smith, D.


Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.
Prescott, Stanley
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D
Young, Sir A. S L. (Partick)


Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.
Raikes, H. V.



Fox, Sqn.-Ldr Sir G.
Scott, Lord W.
TELLERS FOK THE AYES.


Hollis, M. C.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)



Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S.(Southport)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre an


Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.)
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
Mr. Spence.




NOES


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E R.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Forman, J. C.
Mitchison, Maj. G. R.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Foster, W. (Wigan)
Monslow, W.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)


Attewell, H C.
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Moyle, A.


Baird, Capt. J
Ganley, Mrs C. S
Nally, W.


Barton, C
Gilzean, A.
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Glanville, J. E. (Conselt)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Bing, Capt. G. H. C.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Noel-Buxton, I ad[...]


Binns, J.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
O'Brien, T.


Blyton, W. R.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Orbach, M.


Boardman, H.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Paget, R. T


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W
Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side)
Pearson, A.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Hale, Leslie
Perrins, W


Brown, George (Belper)
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Platts-Mills, J. F. F


Brown, T. J. (lnce)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Cot. R.
Popplewell, E.


Champion, A. J.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Price, M. Philips


Clitherow, Dr. R.
Hardy, E. A.
Pritt, D. N.


Cobb, F. A.
Herbison, Mist M.
Ranger, J.


Coldrick, W.
Holman, P.
Rankin, J.


Collindridge, F.
Hubbard, T.
Robens, A.


Collins, V. J.
Hutchinson, H L. (Rusholme)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Comyns, Dr. L.
Irving, W. J
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Cook, T. F.
Janner, B.
Royle, C


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Sargood, R.


Crawley, Flt.-Lieut. A.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E, A. A.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Shawcross, Sir H (St. Helens)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Keenan, W.
Shurmer, P.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Kenyan, C.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Delargy, Captain H. J.
King, E. M.
Skeffington, A. M.


Diamond, J.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Skinnard, F. W.


Dobbie, W.
Kinley, J
Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir B. (Rotherhithe)


Dodds, N. N.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W-)


Douglas, F. C. R
Lang, G.
Snow, Capt J. W


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.


Dumpleton, C. W.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Steele, T.


Dye, S.
McAllister, G.
Stewart, Capt. Michael (Futham, E.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mack, J. D.
Stubbs, A. E.


Edelman, M.
McKinlay, A. S.
Swingler, S.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Macpherson. T. (Romford)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Mayhew, C. P.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Medland, H. M
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Fairhurst, F.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)


Farthing, W. J.
Mikardo, Ian
Timmons, J.




Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Usborne, Henry
While, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Woodburn, A.


Walkden, E.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Yates, V. F.


Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Wigg, Col. G. E.
Zilliacus, K.


Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Wilkins, W. A.



Warbey, W. N.
Willey, F. T (Sunderland)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Watson, W. M.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)



Weitzman, D.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Mr. Joseph Henderson and


Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Mr. Simmons.

ADJOURNMENT


Resolved: "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pearson.]


Adjourned accordingly at Twelve Minutes to One o'Clock.